Tag: Guest Post

Categories
Truly Free Film

If You (Let Rising Artists) Build It, They Will Come

Guest post by Jill Savarese

If you read “Sell Your Film WIthout Selling Your Soul” you are surely familiar with THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST. Or perhaps you saw it in one of the over 200 bookings they had on their way to being one of the greatest Direct Distribution stories of 2011. Either way, how can you not be excited to hear not only of a filmmaker’s success in bringing a film out themselves — particularly when the process not only yields a new business, but that business has the possibility of helping out over 30 new films? Well, if you like such stories, keep on reading…

There was a joke floating around amongst the production team at The Best and the Brightest that this 4 million-dollar film’s distribution was in the hands of a stay-at-home mom and a student with cerebral palsy.  It was tempting to be a little offended since I was this “mom” but considering that our team got the film 200 screenings and such momentum that Emerging Pictures picked it up for more, I would have to say it’s a coup for moms and people with disabilities everywhere.

Continue reading “If You (Let Rising Artists) Build It, They Will Come”

Categories
Truly Free Film

“Music, Film, and Branding”

guest post by Brian Godshall

I know how important music can be to your projects.I wanted to point out some new developments in the music business that may prove advantageous for any upcoming media you are producing. You may already be aware of some of these and some may be new to you. I hope this information is helpful. After you’ve taken a look at this, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

1. Putting brands together with music and indie films I have been working on some ideas and connections to put together a brand or brands with music and indie films. Specifically I am proposing that an advertiser can pay for some or all of the music rights in an indie film in exchange for co-promotional opportunities. If you have questions or are interested in this concept, please contact me directly.

Continue reading ““Music, Film, and Branding””

Categories
Truly Free Film

Things All Filmmakers Should Know About the “JOBS Act”

Karen Robson and Steve Goodman of Pryor Cashman LLP have kindly provided us with a copy of an analysis they’ve written about the recent changes in securities laws because of the JOBS Act. It contains vital information about crowdfunding and how it relates to film — and is an important read for all filmmakers.

JOBS ACT TO HELP FILMMAKERS RAISE CAPITAL
By: Stephen M. Goodman, Karen M. Robson and David E. Parsly
May 2012

NOTE: This is a general analysis of the statute and should not be considered legal advice.

On April 5, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”). The JOBS Act encompasses a series of proposals that emerged in Congress over the past year, and that were ultimately brought together in a single piece of legislation receiving substantial bipartisan support. The stated purpose of the JOBS Act is to stimulate job growth and capital formation by removing and/or reducing certain costs and regulatory burdens applicable to smaller companies.

Specifically of interest to independent filmmakers, the JOBS Act introduces reforms to a certain widely, used private offering rule to remove the prohibition on “general solicitation” and creates a new exemption for “crowdfunding”, which, when rules mandated by the JOBS Act are finally adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in approximately nine months, will offer the potential to raise money through small investments from a larger number of investors.1 Since rulemaking related to the elimination of the general solicitation rules in private offerings must be completed within 90 days, this exemption will have a more immediate impact than crowdfunding on capital formation for filmmakers.

ELIMINATION OF “GENERAL SOLICITATION” RESTRICTIONS ON RULE 506 OFFERINGS

Private securities offerings under Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), are frequently used by filmmakers to raise capital through the issuance of equity or debt securities. Regulation D offerings are exempt from registration under the Securities Act, which eliminates the substantial burdens and expenses associated with public registration and reporting. The most popular exemption used for domestic private placements is Rule 506 under Regulation D, because the amount that can be raised under Rule 506 is virtually unlimited and, so long as the offering is made only to “accredited investors” (i.e. generally investors that meet certain minimum annual income or net worth requirements), the number of investors is likewise (at least theoretically) unlimited.

However, issuers relying on Rule 506 have been prohibited from engaging in any form of “general solicitation or advertising” to attract investors. The SEC has never precisely specified what constitutes a “general solicitation,” but the SEC has cautioned in no, action letters that to avoid a general solicitation an issuer must approach only investors with whom the issuer has a “pre,existing substantive relationship.”2 Over the last several years, many commentators have noted the deleterious effects on issuer’s capital raising created both by this “general solicitation” limitation and by the vagueness and apparent internal contradiction in its interpretation.

Title II of the JOBS Act amends the Securities Act to specifically permit general solicitation or general advertising in connection with a Rule 506 private placement, so long as everyone who eventually makes an investment is an “accredited investor”. The intended result is to permit issuers, such as companies formed to finance and produce films, to reach a broader pool of potential investors, regardless of whether they have a pre,existing relationship with the issuer.

It is important to remember, however, that the ultimate investors must be “accredited investors”, and here the rules have changed slightly. The JOBS Act mandates that issuers relying on Rule 506 must now take “reasonable steps” to verify that each investor constitutes an “accredited investor” as defined in the Securities Act. At the least, this means that an issuer will no longer be able to rely on an unsupported representation by the purchaser that the purchaser is an accredited investor. Therefore, while the JOBS Act provides filmmakers the ability to cast a wider net and attract any accredited investor by means of a general solicitation, it will likely also place additional burden and expense on filmmakers to conduct some level of diligence on their investors to prove that they are accredited. The changes to the law also leave unanswered what methods or content the SEC will permit (or require) to be used in connection with a “general solicitation” and how activities conducted in connection with general solicitations may affect other fundraising efforts by issuers.

Despite these uncertainties, the removal of the general solicitation prohibition may provide filmmakers the ability to seek direct access to potential investors. Depending on SEC rulemaking regarding general solicitation, it may in some cases mitigate the need for filmmakers to rely on intermediaries such as brokers, placement agents and finders to introduce investors and to bear the financing fees associated therewith.

CROWDFUNDING

In recent years, films and other art and charitable projects have used Internet “crowdsourcing” donations to raise revenue. Instead of donations, “crowdfunding” would permit companies to take in small amounts of money as investments from numerous individuals. Websites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo have previously acted as crowdsourcing portals based on a donation model. The JOBS Act responds to a growing belief among many politicians and business people that entrepreneurs should be able to use this model in an investment context.

Title III of the JOBS Act adds a new “crowdfunding” offering exemption to the Securities Act. The exemption is available to film producers and other issuers if the aggregate amount of all securities sold to investors by the production entity and its affiliates during the 12,month period prior to the latest transaction (including but not limited to any crowdfunding securities) does not exceed $1,000,000. The crowdfunding exemption restricts the aggregate amount that may be sold to any investor by the issuer during this 12,month period to either $2,000 or five percent of the investor’s annual income or net worth (if his or her annual income or net worth is less than $100,000) or ten percent of the investor’s annual income or net worth (if his or her annual income or net worth is $100,000 or more). In the latter case, the maximum aggregate amount that can be sold to the investor during the 12,month period is $100,000.

Both the overall limitation on the aggregate amount of securities that can be offered in the 12 months prior to the offering date and the caps expressed in the limitations on individual investors include not only securities sold pursuant to the crowdfunding exemption during those 12 months but also any other securities of the issuer purchased by that investor without regard to the 12,month period. This means, for example, that if a producer has raised $500,000 in a Rule 506 private placement, then for the next 12 months it cannot raise more than $500,000 in a crowdfunding offering.

However a filmmaker seeking to rely on the new crowdfunding exemption will not be able to simply post its offering on a website and accept offered cash. Rather, there will be a significant number of requirements on the manner of offering the securities and the types of information that must be made available to investors, the SEC and state regulators, as well as requirements for updating the information during the offering and after the offering is completed.

Perhaps most significantly, the JOBS Act requires that any crowdfunding offer be conducted through a registered broker or “funding portal”3, not directly by the production entity itself. To satisfy the JOBS Act’s requirements that the broker take responsibility for the crowdfunding offering, the broker is required to:

• provide various disclosures, including disclosures relating to risks, and other investor education materials (to be prescribed by SEC rule);

• ensure that each investor (a) reviews these disclosures and materials (in accordance with standards to be established by the SEC), (b) affirms that the investor understands the risk of potential loss of the entire investment and that the investor can bear the loss and (c) answers questions demonstrating that the investor understands the risks of start,up investing, illiquidity of the investment and “such other matters as the SEC determines by rule”;

• take measures (to be established by the SEC) to reduce the risk of fraud, including obtaining a background check and securities enforcement history on each officer and director of the production entity and each person holding more than 20 percent of that entity’s securities;

• make certain information required to be provided by the production entity (see below) available to the SEC and to potential investors at least 21 days prior to the first sale of securities;

• ensure that proceeds are only released to the production entity after a target offering amount is reached and allow for investors to cancel their commitments (as determined by SEC rule);

• verify (to the extent deemed necessary by the SEC) that no investor has exceeded the limits on aggregate investment in the production entity required by the exemption (see below);

• protect the privacy of information collected from investors (to the extent determined by SEC rule);

• not compensate any finder, promoter or others for providing “personal identifying information” of any potential investor;

• prohibit its own directors, officers orpartners from having any financial interest in the production entity; and

• meet such other requirements as the SEC may deem appropriate for the protection of investors.

To rely on the new crowdfunding exemption, the production entity must also comply with a number of disclosure and offering requirements. In particular, the production entity must:

• file extensive disclosure with the SEC and provide to the investors and the relevant broker or funding portal information regarding (1) its name, address and website address; (2) the names of its directors and officers and each person holding more than 20 percent of its shares; (3) its business and its anticipated business plan; (4) its financial condition4; (5) the stated purpose and intended use of the proceeds of the offering; (6) the target offering amount, the deadline to reach the target amount and “regular updates” on the progress of the offering; (7) the price (or the method for determining the price) of the securities offered and a reasonable opportunity to rescind the purchase commitment if the final price is not determined at the time the commitment is made; (8) a description of the ownership and capital structure of the production entity and the terms of the offered securities (including how the offered securities have been valued and the risks of being a minority owner); and (9) such other information as the SEC may require;

• not advertise the terms of the offering, other than to direct investors to the funding portal or broker;

• not compensate anyone to promote the offering unless the person clearly discloses the receipt of compensation in connection with any such promotional communication (pursuant to rules to be adopted by the SEC);

• file at least annually with the SEC (and provide to investors) reports of the results of operations and financial statements (as specified by SEC rule); and

• comply with such other requirements as the SEC may prescribe.

The SEC has been given 270 days to promulgate rules and regulations clarifying the crowdfunding exemption.

The information required to be made available by the issuer as described above is also to be made available to any state securities agency. Securities issued in a crowdfunding offer are exempt from certain state “blue sky” requirements except that notice filings may be required in the state where the principal place of business is located or where purchasers of 50% or more of the offering are residents.
The production entity accepting the investment remains liable for material misstatements and omissions in information provided in a crowdfunding offer. Securities purchased in a crowdfunding transaction may not be transferred by the purchaser for one year following the date of purchase except to the production entity itself, to an accredited investor, as part of a resale registration statement filed with the SEC, to a “member of the family of the purchaser or the equivalent” or, in the discretion of the SEC, in connection with the death or divorce or other similar circumstance affecting the purchaser. Finally, the JOBS Act provides that purchasers who acquire securities in a crowdfunding transaction will not be included in calculating the number of record holders that an issuer may have before it is required to make public disclosures under the federal securities laws.

Due to the 270 day period for the SEC to implement crowdfunding rules, filmmakers will be forced to take a wait and see approach on what the impact of crowdfunding will be on the film financing industry. The costs associated with engaging a funding portal remain unknown, as well as the full extent of legal and other professional assistance that will be required. In light of the $1 million cap on the amount of crowdfunding offerings permitted per year and the recordkeeping and other potential burdens associated with having a large number of micro investors, it is possible that crowdfunding may be less popular than some anticipate. Still, as Kickstarter and Indiegogo have proven in the context of donations, there are masses of previously untapped investors out there that the JOBS Act may now allow filmmakers to access.

If you have any questions or would like any further information about the JOBS Act or how Pryor Cashman can serve your legal needs, please contact the authors of this Legal Update or the Pryor Cashman attorney with whom you work.

1 On April 23, 2012, the SEC issued a notice reminding issuers that until the SEC adopts implementing rules any offers or sales of securities purporting to rely on the crowdfunding exemption would be unlawful under the federal securities laws.

2 See, e.g., Bateman, Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. (pub. avail. Dec. 3, 1985); Lamp Technologies (pub. avail. May 29, 1997).

3 A funding portal is defined by a new Section 3(a)(80) of the Exchange Act as an intermediary involved specifically in the offer or sale of securities pursuant to Section 4(6) that does not (1) offer investment advice, (2) engage in solicitation of transactions in the offered securities, (3) compensate anyone for such solicitations or on the basis of sales of such securities, (4) handle investor funds or securities or (5) engage in any other activities that the SEC deems inappropriate. A funding portal is to be exempt from registration as a broker or dealer, but will nevertheless have to register with the SEC as well as with “any applicable self,regulatory organization”. It remains, however, subject to the examination, enforcement and other rulemaking activity of the SEC and such other requirements of the Exchange Act as the SEC deems appropriate and it must be a member of a national securities association registered under Section 15A of the Exchange Act (although the national securities association can only enforce rules adopted specifically for such portals).

4 Specifically, issuers using the exemption must provide the following financial information, depending upon the size of the offering: (a) income tax returns and financial statements certified as true and complete by the principal executive officer (if the aggregate offering amounts within the previous 12 months is $100,000 or less), (b) financial statements reviewed by an independent public accountant (if the aggregate offering amounts are between $100,000 and $500,000) or (c) audited financial statements (if the aggregate offering amounts are more than $500,000 (or such other amount as the SEC may establish)).

***

Copyright © 2012 by Pryor Cashman LLP. This Legal Update is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or the creation of an attorney-client relationship. While all efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the contents, Pryor Cashman LLP does not guarantee such accuracy and cannot be held responsible for any errors in or reliance upon this information. This material may constitute attorney advertising.


STEPHEN M. GOODMAN
Partner

Stephen M. Goodman is co-head of the Mergers and Acquisitions Practice at Pryor Cashman LLP. He has extensive experience representing companies in public offerings, private placements, and other complex financing and acquisition arrangements.

Mr. Goodman has also written on topics ranging from raising seed capital for entrepreneurial companies to the SEC’s whistleblower rules to the Supreme Court’s decision regarding material nondisclosure in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, and has lectured on various aspects of capital formation at Columbia University, the City University of New York and the New York Academy of Sciences. His most recent article is “Still Room for Finders? Courts Question SEC View of Broker Activity” (BNA Securities Regulation & Law Report, November 14, 2011).

Mr. Goodman is a 1977 graduate of New York University School of Law, where he was Order of the Coif and Articles Editor of the Annual Survey of American Law.

KAREN M. ROBSON
Partner

Karen Robson has worked primarily in the Film Finance and Production practice of the Entertainment Group since 1986 and heads the Los Angeles office of Pryor Cashman LLP. Karen represents a variety of financiers, banks, equity investors, high,profile independent producers and production companies for which she structures film finance transactions and also provides production legal representation. She also represents individual writers, directors and producers in the motion picture and television areas.
For over twenty years, Karen has handled financing on multiple picture deals and single pictures, television mini,series and major documentaries. In recent years, Karen has represented both producers and lenders with respect to film financings which include senior and mezzanine debt and/or equity; international co,productions and U.S. tax incentivized financings.

Karen is also experienced in representing properties in the film, video, television and merchandising areas including properties in the family entertainment arena, including The Berenstain Bears, I Spy, a children’s television series featuring music artist Dan Zanes, and theatrical feature films based on a series of major children’s television and merchandising properties.

Prior to her career as an attorney, Karen had a brief career as a film actress in Australia, including a major role in Peter Weir’s cult favorite, Picnic at Hanging Rock.

DAVID E. PARSLY
Associate

David Parsly is an associate in the Corporate Group and represents public and private companies in a variety of general corporate matters, including corporate formation and governance, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, and securities issuance and compliance.

David is a 2007 graduate of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and earned a B.A. from the University of Michigan in 2004. While in law school, David served as a judicial intern for the Honorable Richard B. Lowe III in the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County.

www.pyorcashman.com

Categories
Truly Free Film

Peter Broderick: “The Power of Free”

As always Peter Broderick’s latest newsletter is a must read — this time it’s about the documentary “Hungry For Change” and how the directors’ incredibly success with the film is precisely because they gave it away for free, online. Once again, Peter’s been nice enough to let me share the newsletter here with you. I can’t recommend enough that you sign up for Peter’s Distribution Bulletin.

The extraordinary million-dollar success of HUNGRY FOR CHANGE marks a new era of opportunities for independents. It illustrates how “free” can be used to achieve broad awareness, generate revenue quickly, and build a worldwide audience.

The release of HUNGRY FOR CHANGE was unprecedented. The film:
– premiered online (having never screened publicly before)
– was available worldwide
– was absolutely free (for 10 days only)

The results were remarkable:
– 453,841 views around the world during the 10 day premiere
– over $1.02 million in sales of DVDs and recipe books in the first 14 days

HUNGRY FOR CHANGE is a documentary that challenges the myths perpetuated by the weight loss industry and shows how to develop a healthy, lifelong diet. It is the second film by dynamic husband-and-wife team James Colquhoun and Laurentine ten Bosch, who I started consulting with in 2008 when they were beginning to distribute FOOD MATTERS, which went on to sell over 230,000 DVDs (see Distribution Bulletin #14). James and Laurentine are based in Australia but came to Los Angeles last week, where they told me the inside story of their historic “Free Worldwide Online Premiere.”

James and Laurentine have learned how to tap the power of free. They’ve been experimenting with the possibilities of free for four years, first with FOOD MATTERS and now with HUNGRY FOR CHANGE.

FOOD MATTERS

Free Public Screenings – Instead of following the industry norm of charging organizations fees to hold screenings, the filmmakers took a risk and allowed anyone who registered to host a screening for free. The FOOD MATTERS website encourages the hosting of screenings:

“As part of our vision to provide life-transforming information that is accessible to all people, we are excited to allow free screenings of Food Matters around the globe.”

The website provides a free screening resource pack, which includes handouts, posters, and other publicity materials. James and Laurentine believed that the cost of lost screening revenues would be much smaller than the benefit of positive word-of-mouth from a greater number of screenings, resulting in increases in visitors to the website, mailing lists sign-ups, and DVD sales.

Free, Dynamic Website Content – The filmmakers regularly added content to the FOOD MATTERS website, making it a valuable resource for their audience. This included videos that were freely available to all visitors to the website who registered, which simply consisted of inputting a name and an email address.

Free Online Screening – In December 2010, FOOD MATTERS DVDs were put on sale from the website for one week at half price. This resulted in 4600 sales, the best week in 2 1Ž2 years of sales. In October 2011, the filmmakers took a more radical approach with even better results. They allowed all comers to watch FOOD MATTERS for free for 8 days. This stimulated direct and indirect sales of 9800 DVDs, twice as many as were sold when it was offered at half price. Even more impressive, over 37,000 people joined the mailing list during this event.

As James explained, when you offer a film for free you get sign-ups from a good percentage of everyone who views the film. When you are having a sale, you only get the customer information from those who actually make a purchase. “For us, we’re about creating a long-term relationship with our followers and not just selling to them,” noted James.

HUNGRY FOR CHANGE

After their successful experiments with free, particularly the online screening of FOOD MATTERS, James and Laurentine decided to go all the way with HUNGRY FOR CHANGE. They were aware of some films that had been released free online, such as Michael Moore’s SLACKER UPRISING, but knew of no major ones that had premiered online.

Pre-Release Marketing – They chose the term FREE WORLDWIDE ONLINE PREMIERE and released the trailer for HUNGRY FOR CHANGE on March 1, 2012. This was followed by two more eblasts with additional video content, including the first 4 minutes of the film, during the 21 days leading up to the premiere. They also partnered with the experts featured in the film. These experts had their own followers and shared in both the promotion of the free online premiere and the revenues from sales they referred.

Global Reach – The Free Worldwide Online Premiere was an instant hit. On its first day (March 21st) there were 45,211 plays. Tens of thousands of people watched the film each day. The premiere ended with a bang with 58,292 plays on the final day (March 31st). Altogether there were almost half a million views from more than 150 countries across the globe in just 10 days. These are astonishing numbers for an independent film that had never been seen before, had no paid advertising, and was not available through any retail channels.

Subscribers – There were 229,000 sign-ups in 14 days, a significantly greater number than FOOD MATTERS had gained in the previous 4 years. James estimates that less than 30% of the HUNGRY FOR CHANGE sign-ups were FOOD MATTERS subscribers, which means that at least 160,000 were new subscribers, almost doubling James and Laurentine’s already substantial online following.

Revenue – Everyone who viewed HUNGRY FOR CHANGE was given access to three special offers: the DVD for $34.95, the new recipe book for $49.95, or the DVD and the recipe book for $74.95. Each order came with free bonuses and free shipping. In the first 14 days, over 20,800 orders were placed totaling over $1 million in sales. Although most purchasers had already seen the film for free, many wanted to buy a copy for themselves or purchase it as a gift for family or friends.

Access – Beyond broad awareness, revenues, and sign-ups, there are other important benefits of free. It removes a major barrier between filmmakers and audiences. If the film is available at no charge, at least temporarily, it is accessible to everyone. From the beginning, James and Laurentine have been motivated by a strong desire to get their message out to more people. Free allows their films to be seen even more widely and enables them to build relationships with viewers.

Good Will – Another major benefit of free is good will, which has allowed the filmmakers to develop a truly interactive relationship with their audience. They talk directly to their followers who tell them what they want. This knowledge has enabled them to make and market films that meet their followers’ needs and continue to be seen by more and more people.
—–

Taking free to a new level has also expanded awareness of James and Laurentine and created new opportunities for them. They are now writing a book for HarperCollins, which will be published this fall to coincide with the retail release of HUNGRY FOR CHANGE.

© 2012 Peter Broderick

Peter Broderick is a Distribution Strategist who helps design and implement customized plans to maximize revenues for independent films. He is also a leading advocate of crowdfunding and crowdsourcing, championing them in keynotes and presentations around the world. You can read his articles at www.peterbroderick.com

Categories
Truly Free Film

“A Tree Falls In The Forest” and other ruminations on social/community-based marketing…

by Jeffrey Winter, Sheri Candler, and Orly Ravid.

The old philosophical thought experiment “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” has never been truer for film distribution. With the incredible number of films available for consumption on innumerable platforms, getting some form of distribution for your film is no longer the core problem. The central issue now is: how will anyone know about it? How will you find your audience? And how will you communicate enough to them to drive them to the point of actually seeing it?


Before we plunge into that question, let’s take one step back and discuss the term “distribution.” In today’s convergence universe, where anyone with technical savvy can be surfing the Internet and watching it on their television, every single person with a high speed internet connection is in some way a “distributor.” Anyone can put content onto their website and their Facebook and de facto make it available to anyone else in the world. Anyone can use DIY distribution services to distribute off their site(s), and get onto larger and / or smaller platforms.


Even getting your film onto some combination of the biggest digital platforms – i.e. iTunes, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and Cable VOD – is not insurmountable for most films. We’re not saying it is easy…there are a myriad of steps to go through and rigorous specs at times and varying degree of gatekeepers you’ll have to interface with and get approval from. But with some good guidance (for example, we at the Film Collaborative can help you with that), some cash, and a little persistence…these distribution goals can usually be achieved.


But in a certain way, none of that matters. If you have your film available, say, on iTunes…. how is anyone going to know that? Chances are you aren’t going to get front- page promo placement, so people will have to know how and why to search for it. This is why the flat fee services to get onto iTunes (which we now offer too) do not necessarily mean you will net a profit. Films rarely sell themselves. You are going to have to find the ways to connect to an audience who will actively engage with your film, and create awareness around it, or you will certainly fall into the paradox of the “tree falls in the forest” phenomenon… which many independent filmmakers can relate to.


So we arrive at the current conundrum, how do we drive awareness of our films? The following are the basic “points of light” everyone seems to agree with.


• Use the film festival circuit to create initial buzz.

• If you can, get the film into a break-even theatrical, hybrid theatrical, non-theatrical window that spreads word of mouth on the film.

• Engage the press, both traditional press and blogosphere, to write about the film.

• Build a robust social media campaign, starting as early as possible (ideally during production and post), creating a “community” around your film.

• Build grassroots outreach campaign around any and all like-minded organizations and web-communities (i.e. fan bases, niche audiences, social issue constituencies, lifestyle communities, etc.)

• Launch your film into ancillaries, like DVD and digital distro, and make sure everyone who has heard of the film through the previous five bullet points now knows that they can see the film via ancillary distribution, and feels like a “friend” of the effort to get the word out to the public-at-large.
• Be very creative and specific in your outreaches to all these potential partners, engaging them in very targeted marketing messages and media to cut through the glut of information that the average consumer is already barraged with in everyday life. This, above all, means being diligent in finding your true “fans,” i.e. the core audience who will be passionate about your subject matter and help you spread the word.


Our book SELLING YOUR FILM WITHOUT SELLING YOUR SOUL and its companion blog on www.SellingYourFilm.com already highlights a good number of filmmakers who have used some combination of the above tactics to successful effect in finding a “fanbase” of audiences most likely to consume the film. Here, in this posting, we illustrate some additional recent films and tactics useful to filmmakers moving forward with these techniques.


WE WERE HERE, by David Weissman
Selected for the U.S. Documentary Competition by the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, WE WERE HERE tells the emotionally gripping story of the onset of AIDS in San Francisco in the early 1980s. The Film Collaborative handled festival release for this film, as well as international sales and grassroots marketing support on behalf of the theatrical and VOD (and US sales in conjunction with Jonathan Dana). Theatrical distribution, press, and awards campaigning is being handled by Red Flag Releasing.





On the face of it, WE WERE HERE is a documentary about a depressing topic like AIDS, and therefore doesn’t seem like the easiest sell in the world. However, it also happens to be an excellent film that was selected for Sundance and Berlin, as well as a film that has fairly obvious niche audiences that can be identified and targeted. As soon as The Film Collaborative came onboard, about a month prior to the Sundance 2011 premiere, we set about creating a list of more than 300 AIDS organizations in the United States, and reached out to each of them to ask them to get to know us on Facebook and our website, and also offered to send them screeners, in case they wanted to host a special screening down the road etc. Needless to say, we got an enthusiastic response from these groups (since we were doing work they would obviously believe in), but the goal here was not to make any kind of immediate money…we simply wanted them onboard as a community to tap into down the line.


Simultaneously, we created a targeted list of 160 film festivals we thought were best for the film — mixing major international fests, doc fests, and LGBT fests – and sent each of them a personalized email telling them about the film and asking them if they would like to preview it. The film (to date, is still booking internationally) was ultimately selected by over 100 film festivals (many not on our original target list of course).


As the screenings began, we reminded the filmmaker over and over to follow every introduction and every Q&A with a reminder about “liking” the Facebook page, and completely to his credit, filmmaker Weissman was always active in all aspects of Facebook marketing…always posting relevant information about the film and replying to many “fan” posts personally. Not surprisingly, a film this powerful and personal generated many deeply affecting fan posts from people who had survived the epidemic etc…, or were just deeply moved by the film. As a result, the Facebook page became a powerful hub for the film, which we strongly recommend you check out for a taste of what real fan interaction can look like ( http://www.facebook.com/wewerehere). Warning….a lot of the postings are extremely emotional! One quick note – some of the most active subject members of the doc were made administrators as well, and also respond to the posts…a clever idea as it surely makes the FB fans feel even closer to the film, since they can talk with the cast as well. This would be an interesting thing to try with a narrative film as well…having the cast reply on Facebook (FB)… which is something we haven’t seen much of yet.


With the basics of community built – between the AIDS organizations, the Festivals, and the FB fans, we now had a pool to go back to…. both on theatrical release as well as upon VOD release (which just recently happened on December 9, 2011). For each major theatrical market, and for the VOD release, we went back to these people, and asked them to spread the word. We asked for email blasts, FB posts, tweets…whatever they could do to help spread the word. And without a doubt the film has gotten out there beyond anyone’s wildest initial dreams…although with VOD release only last month and DVD release still to come, final release numbers won’t be known to us for some time now…


But you can be assured we’ll be hitting up our community when the DVD comes out as well! Also please note that these techniques and efforts apply to any niche. For example, on a panel at Idyllwild Film Festival a filmmaker talked about his documentary about his father playing for the Chicago Cubs and how he sold 90,000 DVDs himself (and he also did event theatrical screenings via Emerging Pictures). He simply went after the niche, hard.


HENRY’S CRIME directed by Malcolm Veneville
Starring Keanu Reeves, Vera Farmiga, and James Cannes, world premiere at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival. Released in limited theatrical run in April 2011, and available on DVD and digital platforms as of August 2011. Although a film with “A-level” cast, the film was produced independently and distributed independently by Moving Pictures Film and Television. The film tells the story of a wrongly accused man (Reeves) who winds up behind bars for a bank robbery he didn’t commit. After befriending a charismatic lifer (Caan) in prison, Henry finds his purpose — having done the time, he decides he may as well do the crime. Ancillaries for the film are handled by Fox Studios. The Film Collaborative’s sister for-profit company, New American Vision, was brought aboard to handle special word-of-mouth screenings for the film, as well as social media marketing, working in conjunction with several top publicists and social marketing campaign companies in the business.





On the face of it, this film couldn’t possibly be any more different than WE WERE HERE. A narrative, heist/rom-com with major names sounds a lot easier to sell than an AIDS doc with no names. And yet, the process of reaching out to the public was surprisingly similar….both in terms of what we did and what other professional consultants on the project did as well.


First, we targeted major film festivals and major film society organizations around the country for special “word-of-mouth” (WOM) screenings of the film – seeking to create a buzz amongst likely audiences. Since the film was to be theatrically released in major markets, we targeted the festivals/film societies in these markets. This result was successful, and we got major WOM screenings in NY, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, as well as Buffalo…which was important only because the film was shot and set in Buffalo and used significant Buffalo-based crew and resources, making it a perfect market for the film.


Next, we broke the film down into logical first constituencies for the film, which we identified as follows: 1) fans of Keanu Reeves and fans of his prior movies, 2) fans of Vera Farmiga and fans of her prior movies, 3) fans of James Caan and fans of his prior movies, 4) twitter accounts that mentioned any of the cast as well as those dedicated to independent film etc., 5) web communities dedicated to anything related to the playwright Anton Checkov (because the film features significant and lengthy scenes dedicated to Reeves and Farmiga performing Checkov’s Cherry Orchard), 6) key websites dedicated to romantic comedies, 7) key recommenders of independent film, etc. Over the course of approximately six weeks prior to release, we reached out to these sites regularly, in an effort to build excitement for the film.


While this grassroots work was taking place, our colleagues in publicity organized press junkets around the film, and of course solicited reviews. In addition, marketing professionals from both Ginsberg Libby and Moving Pictures were constantly feeding marketing assets for the film as well as exclusive clips both to the major press, key film sites, as well as to the official Facebook and twitter for the movie….all with the same goal in mind…i.e. to create awareness for a film that, although it had the feeling of a traditional Hollywood film in many ways, was actually thoroughly independent and lacking the resources for major TV buys, billboards, print ads, and other traditional marketing techniques.


Unfortunately, in the end, HENRY’S CRIME did not truly take hold, and the theatrical release was far less than stellar. The reviews for the film were not complimentary (it is a good film, but not a great film), and the word-of-mouth was also not sufficient to drive the performance of the film.


This of course often happens with independent film releases, and in this case the lessons learned were particularly instructive. It was apparent while working on the film that the community-building aspects of the marketing campaign started far too late to truly engage an audience large enough to support the release (it only began in earnest about six weeks before the film’s release…even though the film had had its festival world premiere nearly SIX MONTHS before). In addition, HENRY’S CRIME proves the old adage that, sometimes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink…meaning that the word of mouth audiences and press reviews didn’t particularly spark interest in the film in the wider community because they weren’t particularly excited by the film.


This is a lesson sometimes we all need to learn the hard way…that in today’s glutted market, it isn’t always enough to put out a decent movie….in fact in today’s competition, you really need to put out a independent movie that is actually great…or at least connects so deeply with your audience that they are compelled to see it.


Of course, one endless question rages on here. What are the long-tail effects of the outreach? Just because people didn’t turn out in droves to see a film in the theater, does that mean they won’t tune in on a later date in the digital platform of their choice. Certainly many people who have HEARD of Henry’s Crime who didn’t see it in the theater may one day rent it on an available digital platform, and that is why the grassroots work is so critical. We are setting up today what we can’t possibly know until tomorrow….or maybe several years from now.


TAKE-AWAY LESSONS from this post


By comparing these experiences, there are several take-aways that filmmakers should be encouraged to keep in mind when thinking about marketing their independent film. Here are some of them….


1) Build a list, both in the real world and online, of every organization and cross-promotional partner you can think of (or google), that might be interested in your film.
Reach out to them about your film, and ask for their support. This is arduous work, but it has to be done. From Sheri Candler: “Initially you will take part in the community before you tell them why you are there. For example, I started researching where online the ballet community hangs out and who they listen to. I also endeavored to meet these people offline when I could. If I was going to be in their city, I asked to meet for coffee. Real life interface when you can. I then started following those online communities and influencers quietly to start with and interjecting comments and posts only when appropriate. They were then curious about me and wanted to hear about the film. If I had gone on to the platforms or contacted the influencers immediately telling them I was working on a film, chances are they would shun me and ruin my chances to form relationships. This is why you have to start so early. When you’re in a hurry, you can’t spend the necessary time to develop relationships that will last, you can’t build the trust you need. It helps to deeply care about the film. I think the biggest takeaway I have learned when it comes to outreach is the very personal nature of it. If you don’t personally care, they can tell. They can tell you are there to use them and people are on their guard not to be used. The ideal situation is they WANT to help, they ASK to help, you don’t have to cajole them into it.”


2) Offer your potential partners something back in return.
With a film like WE WERE HERE, this wasn’t difficult…because the film naturally supported their work. But, for most films, you’ll need to offer them something back… like ticket-giveways, promotional emails, branding, opportunities for fundraising around the cause, merchandising give-aways, groups discounts, etc. Be creative in your thinking as to why YOU should get their attention amongst the many other films out there.


3) Community-building is an organic, long-term process…
Just like making friends in the real world, the process of making “friends” in community marketing and online takes time and real connection. With WE WERE HERE, we had a year to build connections amongst AIDS orgs, film festivals, and attendees at numerous screenings. The opposite was true with HENRY’S CRIME….six weeks just doesn’t work. Ask yourself…how many “friends” could you make in six weeks?


4) Community-building only really works with films that truly “touch” their audience.
In today’s glutted marketplace, you need to make a film that really speaks profoundly to your audience and excites them ….unless of course you have a huge enough marketing budget to simply bludgeon them with numerous impressions (this, of course, is usually reserved to the studios, who can obviously launch mediocre films with great success through brute force). You, probably, cannot do this.


5) You need to be very specific and targeted in your outreach to likeminded organizations etc.
Don’t rely on organizations to give you “generalized support.” Provide them with very specific instructions on how and when they should outreach about your film. For example….make sample tweets, sample FB posts, and draft their email blasts for them. Give them as close to a ready-to-go marketing outreach tool as possible…with a specific “call to action” clearly identified.


6) You’ll need warm bodies and some technical know-how on you side to accomplish this.
There’s absolutely NOTHING mentioned in this post that an individual filmmaker with a talented team of helpers cannot accomplish. But whether its using HootSuite or Tweetdeck or Facebook analytics, or a compelling set of marketing assets and the time and energy to get them out there….you’ll need a team to help you. Remember, all DIY (do it yourself) marketing is really DIWO (do it with others), and you’ll need to build your team accordingly. If you are short on cash…you’ll likely need to be long on interns and other converts to the cause. But if you are seeking a professional team that’s long on experience and expertise, you can find many of them on The Film Collaborative’s new Resource Place page. There are many services out there to help you who have done this before….you are not alone! Sheri wonders: “how many people are reasonable”? Of course it varies, but I think 4 is safe. A traditional publicist with a big contact list for your target publications who handles press inquiries and placements; an outreach/social media person who is a great fit for your audience to regularly post and answer questions/comments from the audience not the journalists; a distribution/booker who figures out how the film will be distributed and all of the tech specs, shopping carts, contracts, festivals, community screenings that are appropriate; and the graphic designer/web designer who figures out the technical and aesthetic elements needed to make the online impact you will need.
It is still a big job for only 4 people but it would be completely overwhelming for just one person to do or a person who doesn’t know what they are doing and a bunch of interns to handle.


7) A final take home: You may not see immediate results of each outreach and we know how dispiriting that can be. A lot of times early in the process, you will fail to connect, fail to get a response, but keep plugging away and you will very often come to enjoy the fruits of your distribution / marketing labor whether by emboldening a cause, generating more revenue, or enhancing your career, or all of the above.


Happy Distributing!!!!


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.

Categories
Truly Free Film

“Like Crazy” Co-writing On A Project Without A Script

By Ben York Jones

It’s hard to describe to someone what your role was as co-writer, on a movie they read in the New York Times, “Was Filmed Without a Script.” There’s no succinct answer. I couldn’t Tweet a properly inclusive explanation. Well, I tried. This was after I received a Tweet that seemed to accuse me and by association, my co-writer (the film’s very talented director, Drake Doremus) of self-aggrandizing – for awarding ourselves writing credit on a reportedly script-less film. I remember feeling dismissed. Frustrated. Worse yet, I began seriously doubting my abilities when I read the offending Tweet:

“Is it true the dialogue was all improvised on Like Crazy? That’s the word on the street…”

Alright, so it wasn’t as bad as I remember. Actually, they’d heard correct. But when it’s late, and you just lost that one seminal gig, and the Times chose the sub-heading, “What Writer?” to describe a film you poured so much into… you start to question your value. I had to publish my own headline. I had to describe to this stranger, in 140 characters or less, exactly what it meant to write an improvised film. And I would make those 140 characters (or less) shine! If it took all night! I replied 5 minutes later:

“The actors worked from a very detailed “scriptment” written in prose. On set, they were asked to put things in their own words.”

Well… Not exactly dazzling as far as headlines go, and no points for a lack of alliteration, but at least it was a little more accurate.

I vividly remember seeing Christopher Guest’s film Waiting For Guffman for the first time in junior high. Noted for being improvised, there was something so organic and honest about that film. It was unlike any comedy I had seen. The characters were so complete, and at the same time completely unaware of themselves, as was the camera. Intimate, but objective – Guest trusted an expression, an inflection, or silence to do the talking. Around this time, because the guys on the VHS jacket looked so weird, I rented and watched American Movie. To this day, it is my favorite film. I didn’t think I was interested in documentaries at that time, but what struck me like no narrative film had before, was the pencil-line it danced between it’s highs and lows. It was at once the funniest film I’d ever seen, and one of the more tragic. This is real, I thought. This is visceral. This is the human condition. I knew then, documentary or not, this was the affect a film should have. Finding a parallel in Guffman was kind of a personal mini-revelation. Things clicked. This is how it translates to a narrative.

After establishing the specifics were going to be improvised, writing Like Crazy was like giving driving directions to someone by landmark (it’s by this one tree… you’ll know it when you see it) rather than street names. As it was to be a movie largely built on moments between moments, we decided what would be important to communicate was not what the characters should say, but what they should withhold. This lead to the good stuff – back-story and inner monologue found it’s way onto the page to accompany the action. We also included music cues; most didn’t end up in the film, but I think helped set the tone. And every once in a while we suggested some dialogue, but it was only ever suggested. It was always Drake’s intention to provide the cast with plenty of space to discover on set. To capture them truly listening and responding. It was for this reason he wisely made certain they fell just short of finding the scenes in rehearsal. At a very dense 50-pages, the script read more like a short story with scene headings. And like any screenplay it had required many drafts and jam sessions with our producers, right up to production in order to get it there. Actually the revisions never stop. They just sort of peter-out for one person, then change hands – now it’s up to the cast… now it’s up to the editor. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the film’s editor, Jonathan Alberts.

As it turns out, when you ask your cast to improvise, you’re also asking the crew to adjust accordingly. A focus-puller’s task, for example, becomes a lot more demanding when the actors have no marks to hit. Several of us in key roles had had some experience with this improvised process on our previous film, a lo-fi comedy called Douchebag. But it’s fair to say we approached that far more casually. Almost as an experiment, the result of which was a great deal of trial and error, and re-shoots, and pick-ups that included adding scenes to fill gaps. The stakes were higher on Like Crazy. It had to pack some serious punch and deliver across the boards, first time out. Fortunately, the synergy was right, the phenomenal cast was brave and trusting of their director, and it came together.

It’s widely acknowledged, a film is written three times: On the page, on set, and in the cutting room. This adage is never more appropriate than in reference to an improvised film. And as I’ve branched out to develop more traditional screenplays with new collaborators, I find them pleasantly surprised by my eagerness to work with fitting ideas thrown my way. Provided everyone’s going the same direction, the improvisers mantra: “Yes, and…” applies here too.

Ultimately, writing film’s that are to be improvised has taught me to see the pages of a screenplay for what they are: a work-in-progress. I don’t aim to negate the artistry and impact of well-written dialogue. I just mean to say, embracing this idea reminds me that as a screenwriter, my method of delivery is not a bound tome, but a living, breathing cast and crew.

An improvised film has many writers. And if there is trust, it’s amazing to see how they may bring your concepts to life – often in surprising and wonderful ways.


Ben York Jones was born in Englewood, New Jersey, but grew up primarily in Southern California. Both of his parents were New York stage actors, exposing him to a variety of art forms from an early age. After studying screenwriting and directing at Chapman University, Jones worked as a video artist, notably directing music videos and creating branded content. Having maintaining a passion for performance based arts, Jones has appeared in a numerous theatrical productions and is an avid fan of improvisation and sketch comedy. Douchebag marked his first leading role in a feature film, and reunited Jones with childhood friend and collaborator, Drake Doremus. In January 2010, Douchebag premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in the US Dramatic Competition. The Hollywood Reporter and New York Magazine praised Jones’ performance, and the film was released theatrically in October 2010.
Having shifted his primary focus to writing, Jones has recently co-written the 2011 Sundance Grand Jury Prize winner, Like Crazy. The film hits theaters in the fall of 2011. Jones is currently underway on several projects including the screen adaptation of a soon to be released novel, and his third collaboration with Doremus and producer Jonathan Schwartz in as many years.

Categories
Truly Free Film

Just The Start — Microbudget filmmaking in the UK

by Tristan Goligher

In the UK micro budget films are often sneered at, often derided, and often rightly so. It is a fair criticism that many of these films can be high in over indulgence, and low in technical execution. But increasingly, over recent years, micro budget film makers are proving to be amongst the most exciting and innovative of emerging talent. In the states this grass roots creative movement has been evident for some time, giving birth to film makers like Kelly Reichardt, Andrew Bujalski, and Joe Swanberg, to mention just a few. Now it seems that we, the British, are catching on too. Change is in the air, and momentum is gathering. 

 

Continue reading “Just The Start — Microbudget filmmaking in the UK”