Tag: Jacques Thelemaque

By Jacques Thelemaque

Jacques Thelemaque returns today to complete the download of his lessons learned from Digi Hwood knowledge fest. What's the future? Does anyone know? This much I DO know: I would love to have one person cover for our HopeForFilm community all the film related seminars over the course of the year, be they in NYC or LA, and compare what can be gained from these conferences and how they vary. I wonder if we can find a sponsor… I wonder more if we could find one person who can endure — even with the enticement of tasty sandwiches!

The second day of Digital Hollywood started earlier, but I was there on time, excited by the film-specific panels and those bagels, croissants, muffins and pastries with my name on them.

The first panel I went to was "Film Festivals In The Digital Age" presented by IndieWire, moderated by IndieWire staff writer & chief film critic Eric Kohn and including Sebastien Perioche – CEO/President/Founder of Eurocinema On Demand, Amy Dotson – Deputy Director of IFP, Geoff Gilmore – Chief Creative Officer Tribeca Film Festival and Terence Gray – Founder and Executive Director of the New York Television Festival (NYTVF)

Luckily, the panel didn't speak solely about festival issues, but broadened the discussion to address a number of issues swirling around independent film. The panelists all agreed that festivals are more important than ever as curators. But in these challenging times, they also need to be a bit more of a partner for films and filmmakers. After the panel, I asked Amy Dotson how active in the distribution process festivals are willing to be (given that festivals are commonly the only meaningful theatrical distribution a film will get and that the larger festivals often demand a "premiere" to screen your feature). She said that's the million-dollar – but still unanswered – question since it generates so many internal arguments at festivals. In essence, the answer defines the role of the festival – and there does not seem to be a unified perspective on what that role should or could be. Certainly, festivals are still not talking too much about how they can help monetize a filmmakers' work. Sebastien tried to put forth the idea that Eurocinema On Demand can provide exposure and royalties (for European filmmakers only). But many of us filmmakers have heard that promise before. Geoff Gilmore, however, seems to be taking the filmmakers financial interests very seriously. He rightly argued that advertising driven platforms suck. Transactional models work better, but thinks the split with filmmakers is typically underwhelming. He claims Tribeca is trying to create a model that provides guarantees as well as meaningful ancillary cash. Sebastien asked what he means by real cash. But that was never answered. Gilmore feels it is the festival's responsibility to embrace and provide a central platform for new media story-telling (gaming, transmedia, etc.). Amy Dotson said commercial agents for filmmakers is a good idea, if you can find one – not just to make commercials but to generate commercial endorsements for films or new media. Over-all, the panel suggested festivals can best support filmmakers if they have clear goals – whether it be to generate exposure or cold, hard cash.

The next panel – in the very same room (I took a break to pee and lost my really great seat) – was "The Future of Content Distribution". This was the panel I was definitely MOST excited about. On the panel were Daniel Laikind – Founder of Stickfigure Productions (Moderator), Rick Allen – CEO of SnagFilms, Gary Delfiner – SVP Digital Distribution at Screen Media Ventures, Erick Opeka – VP VOD and Digital at New Video, Debra Fisher from Oscilloscope Laboratories, Matt Dentler – Head of Content at Cinetic Rights Management and FilmBuff.

When I got back from the bathroom, the panel was already deep in discussion and were busily listing a few of the interesting new video content sites out there: – Machinima, Vuguru. FilmBuff. SnagFilms. Also, some discussion of YouTube, Netflix and Hulu. That led to a discussion about deal models for filmmakers and the importance of separating rights so that you don't give them all up to a single entity. Non-exclusivity is apparently now more accepted – especially with these new companies/sites – allowing filmmakers to negotiate their rights separately with various companies whose core competency allows them to adequately manage the rights they acquire. They went on to say that Netflix, Hulu, and YouTube are making deals with individual producers. But not up-n-comers. They tend to be fairly established filmmakers or name talent. Deals don't bring as much money as broadcast, but, again, you can negotiate to limit the rights they hold. Matt Dentler said content creators (filmmakers, naturally) need to be a lot smarter. And they have to work with companies that have a true digital strategy. Debra Fisher says we must educate ourselves (filmmakers, naturally) on the various platforms and the "metrics" of each. Afterward, I asked Matt if he can provide a case-study that illustrates how a digital strategy is created. He simply said that digital strategy is broken down into two primary approaches based on whether a filmmaker is trying to make money or trying to build exposure (didn't we hear this at the film festival panel?). They can both feed back into each other, but it is incumbent upon the filmmaker to make that decision. He also said his company (FilmBuff) likes to get involved at the rough cut stage – and not any earlier – to begin devising a strategy. Sadly, never got to hear what a typical strategy might sound/look like.

Then I had lunch. Contemplated going somewhere else to eat. But between being a cheap-ass filmmaker and not wanting to leave the event (it was kinda cold last Friday), I dove back into the potpourri of mini-sandwiches, but was sad to find no tuna sandwiches left. Damn, this conference-going can be so challenging at times.

Next up was the HBO panel – which I knew would be one giant commercial for HBO. I didn't mind. I LOVE HBO and I'm not ashamed to admit it!! It started with a tour of HBO Go. When it was finished, and despite my love for HBO, I had to ask myself "What am I doing here?" But I realized that how HBO crafts it's web presence, apps, interactive experiences and over-all social experience around their shows is a sometimes very applicable model for indie filmmakers. Of course, the social experience for HBO shows cannot be replicated exactly by indie filmmakers because they build them around shows that have already reached a certain level of cultural identity. But here are just a few things to consider:

•Keep on point. Do not create social tools/apps whose relevance to your film/show is a big reach.
•"Seed" your social activity with friends/family/crew/etc. – those with only no degrees of separation from you or the project.
•Every social tool used on the web should have a smartphone/tablet app analogy. And every app should be able to talk to the website.
•Tweeting is a bad experience for direct conversations with audience.
•Don't forget the lurkers – people watching the social interactivity, but not participating.
•HBO connect is a new tool that allows audience to connect with what other HBO fans are buzzing about and even connect with stars. "The water cooler re-imagined" is the tagline for HBO connect. Very clever. And this connectivity with filmmakers and important members of the cast of any film (even the smallest) can be truly meaningful.

I finished the day torn between a "Branded Entertainment" (web ads and short ad-sponsored films) panel vs. an "Oscar Campaign" panel. I think I made the wrong choice. "What did I care about Oscar campaigning?", I thought. And I figured the branded entertainment panel would be good information for filmmakers looking to make some cash for their filmmaking. But, of course, the branded entertainment panel was another mind-numbing onslaught of corporate-speak with no clear treasure map for filmmakers and other content creators to follow. So, I left and came in on the tail end of the oscar panel and they seemed to be saying some very interesting things about marketing in general. And the featured film was a doc – which are always indie and more analogous to indie narrative filmmakers than other forms of "content". But I, sadly, got there too late to fully grasp the whole arc of the discussion.

So, here's just a few takeaways from the second day, and from the conference over-all.

•DVD is dead. Or at least that's what everybody was saying. Don't know if I buy that quite yet for nobody filmmakers.
•A new site called YouToo.com was ubiquitous It offers it's users a "fame spot". It made me depressed.
•Know what your goals are as a filmmaker and work backward from than in your digital strategy. Heck, work backward from that in figuring out what you even want to make.
•Stick to your core competency. Stop pretending you'r a filmmaker, a fundraising genius, tech wizard, a marketing guru and a business wunderkind. Surround yourself with people who are much better at things than you are.
•Nobody has a model for consistent, repeatable money-making in the Digital Universe, yet. But all agree, that's where the money will be. I do, too.
•Engagement is all the rage. But some form of engagement is indeed key, even for us shoe-string indies. It's incumbent upon us to create reasons for people to care about our work.
•In the end, it's clear that content is indeed king. Even though few seemed able to talk specifically about content, it's obvious that every success had a really good story behind it or in it. It's just that there is no easy, repeatable formula for "good". But that shouldn't stop us from trying. And good work will find its way into any platform.
•Fresh baked goods are always pleasant to have around.

At the end, no party. No dinner. Just over. Exchanged a few business cards with some interesting peeps and I was gone. Was I glad I went? Absolutely. Was I totally satisfied. Not completely. I got some great info, but I was a bit frustrated by the dearth of clarity and specifics – and the lack of substantive discussion of content. I guess my recommend for the future is that they use moderators who truly reflect the audience (instead of industry peers) who will dig in there and get the kind of specifics we need. But there's no doubt we're all – including the panelists – still on a big learning curve. Which means the future is wide open and full of possibilities….

By Jacques Thelemaque

Conferences abound in the US Film Biz and sometimes seems like another example of industries that still financially prosper in a field that has regularly been headed downwards.  Yet, as corporate focused as they often are, they do point to a tendency to continued education.  Perhaps most hopefully they point to a willingness for our industry to evolve and embrace some aspect of change.  We sent Filmmakers Alliance founder and past HopeForFilm contributor  Jacques Thelemaque to Digital Hollywood NYC to get the perspective for the truly free film community.

— Ted

I don't go to seminars and conferences as often as I used to. Mostly because getting anything beyond a sales pitch out of them is like panning for gold. I've lost patience with sitting through hours of presentations to get a single nugget of new/good information. There are exceptions, however (such as Ted and Christine Vachon's excellent master class which I will post a blog about soon), so I was genuinely excited for the opportunity to attend Digital Hollywood NYC last week.

Frankly, I'm excited by anything that will help me try to understand the new media landscape, which I find frustratingly inscrutable. And given that the two-day conference is titled "Digital Hollywood" (with a subtitle of "Content is King") the natural assumption is that it is looking at the digital landscape from a filmmaking/entertainment/story-telling perspective, which is right in my wheelhouse.

So, I hopped a couple of trains and made it up to the McGraw-Hill building in mid-town Manhattan to see what I could learn. No signage, but lots of helpful people led me to the second floor balcony and suite of classrooms. I got there a bit early and was immediately encouraged by the fresh coffee and buffet of baked goods. No matter what happened, I wouldn't have to experience it on an empty stomach.

I also was happy to learn they offered wifi access, so I pulled up the conference schedule on my computer. Since they always had at least three panels going on simultaneously, you would have to choose one – or hop around getting bits and pieces, which they encourage you to do. It was tough choosing as they were able to get a number of impressive speakers – many CEO's and V.P.'s of both emerging and established companies working, in various ways, at the convergence of digital entertainment and social media.

For the first panel of the conference, I chose one on Social TV. There was also one on philanthropy in the digital age sponsored by Huffington Post that was tugging at me, but I chose Social TV because I felt I really needed to understand what the hell it was. The minute it started, however, I realized I'd be playing catch-up. The audience was clearly expected to already understand the term "Social TV" as well as the buzz-words that flew around the discussion. Here were the four most common buzzwords I heard there, and actually, throughout the conference:

Second screen (even third screen, sometimes) – The computer, tablet or smartphone you are looking at even while you are primarily engaged in some other screen (presumably the television).

Ecosystem – The digital world created by a specific film, tv/internet show, game or product.

Engagement – The connection between an audience and a specific film, tv/internet show, game or product created or enhanced through digital tools and websites.

Metrics – The data related to a specific film, tv/internet show, game, or product. How many eyeballs is it getting? How much activity is it generating? How much money is it making? Etc., etc….

As I sat through the discussion, it became clear to me that, at least in the context of this conference, Social TV seems to be a catch-all term for any tools/technologies that generate social interactions based upon media creation and consumption. It's all the stuff companies are devising to get and keep audiences engaged.

Now, none of this is all that sexy for an old-school film buff like me. But I felt like a six year-old eating my vegetables. It was necessary information I had to swallow. We need to learn about all this stuff and see if it will lead us filmmaking dinosaurs anywhere other than extinction. It turned out, however, that to swallow it, I also needed to interpret it. At this first seminar, as would be the case with nearly all the seminars throughout the conference, there was precious little specific discussion about content. Most speakers spoke in vague generalities about "content" and rarely did anyone discuss Social tools in direct relation to independent film – aside from a specific case-study panel on an Academy Award-nominated doc. The conference, over-all, was heavily slanted toward the television and advertising industries. That doesn't automatically mean there weren't meaningful analogies contained therein for independent filmmakers. But they weren't always obvious. And sometimes, the industry focus was far too tedious to sift through in hopes of finding that small nugget of informational gold. 

So, getting back to the Social TV panel, the combination of buzzwords, vagaries, and corporate agendas finally overwhelmed me and I skipped over to the philanthropy panel before it ended. It was mostly doc filmmakers talking about the globally-impacting work they were doing…and it felt like a breath of fresh air. But the disconnect between what they were discussing and the Social TV panel was striking. Yes, what these doc filmmakers were discussing was far more meaningful and interesting, but they did not seem to even consider employing the kind of audience engagement arsenal that the corporate types were obsessed with just down the hall. I asked filmmaker Laura Pohl how much she integrates transmedia concepts and strategies into her work. She said not at all. At least not on the project she was discussing.

But that is not too surprising because filmmakers in general are still pretty old-school. And, after sitting through most of the Social TV panel, I still had no real idea what the Social TV arsenal is comprised of. So, I returned to the Social TV panel just in time for Q&A and asked some specific questions.

Question: "What tools and techniques do you employ in your Social TV strategies"? Answer: "Well, we use Twitter and Facebook. We invite commentary. We create apps and games and other interactive content. We sometimes run contests. In general, we invest heavily in second, and sometimes third, screen activity…." Uh, okay. Nothing too cutting-edge here, obviously, but I get the idea. Just create as much stuff as possible that will broaden your audience base and/or keep it engaged. What that is specifically is clearly still evolving, and will necessarily be different for different kinds of shows. But between the two panels I came away feeling that all of the things these corporations are doing to sell shows and products can be used extremely effectively by the documentary world to engage people in causes, guide them to action-steps and effect global change.

I also asked Sara Passe of CAA (who works with new media creators and producers): "What kind of projects should indie filmmakers be thinking about in terms of new media/Social TV?" Answer: "The short answer is that it must be globally monetizable and easy to market. It should also provide some clear mechanism for audience engagement. I know it may be counter to what indie filmmakers want to do, but they should focus on creating films that can be cut up into bite-sized pieces – essentially serialized. Does that help? I hope so." Well, sorta.

I wondered why a representative from Sharp (the television manufacturer) was on the panel so I asked her what kind of relationship her company was looking to have with content creators. Her answer: none. She just thinks this Social TV space is really important and we should all be working to understand it. So, we're essentially in the same boat.

From there, I skipped around from "Merging Content with new Technologies" To "Video Across Platforms" to "The Social Experience: Personalized communication" to "Digital Media Investing" to "Transmedia Showcase" to "Cable TV and Broadband: New Content" to "Video on Smartphone and Tablet". Of course, I took a small break in between all this to chow down on the nice sandwiches and cookies they provided. So, here's what I took away from the rest of the day:

Nobody knows anything. Or, at least, nobody has any certainty about where all of this digital potential is leading.

Nobody has yet to hit on a great, consistent model for monetizing new media other than to start a "digital media" venture, get some VC to fund it and pay yourself a lot of money. There are people making small bits of money with web/tablet/smartphone-specific content, but no clear formula for how they've done it.

Nobody seems to talk specifically about content. Content did not seem like King. More like an indentured servant.

The killer spin-off "app" of all time is fantasy football in that it brings in a secondary, but very compelling level of engagement with the main show. Is there a film analogy to that? 

If given the opportunity, audiences will sometimes create their own, often surprising ways to engage with content. Give audiences opportunities to respond to your work and then pay attention to those responses.

Although the Investment panel was just for tech/media entrepreneurs, the key ingredients investors want is also applicable to film – What is the product (what is the film and is the script/concept any good)? What is the market (who will want to buy/see the film)? And what is the team (who are the filmmakers)?

The transmedia panel actually had filmmakers (content creators, as they were called) successfully creating alternative work. But none had an economic formula for what they do. None had a repeatable business model of any kind. They just created work (ALL short form) and were found by audiences (or media companies). 

The day finished with a very nice wine reception that allowed me to connect with a couple of interesting attendees, especially one guy from Germany working on a very cool next generation collaborative filter that could work incredibly well for films. Few of the panelists were anywhere to be found. Neither was dinner, even though it was listed in the program. But there were yummy leftover cookies. I pocketed a few on the way out so that I would end Day

Day Two had a bit more film-related stuff. I'll give you the lowdown and wrap-up in Part 2.

When I first started blogging, one of the first people I encountered was Jacques Thelamaque. His blog “A Filmmaker’s Life” had a similar POV as a lot of what I was writing, albeit from a more personal approach. It is always great to encounter a kindred spirit, particularly one who doesn’t seek to just advance their own work, but that of a larger community.

When Jacques later suggested that The Filmmakers’ Alliance wanted to honor my contribution to Indie Film, I was thrilled. It allowed not only he and I to meet, but I also got to see the positive results, and many of the films and filmmakers, that FA helped push forward. The greatest pleasure though was learning how committed Jacques and the FA was to solving the riddle of how best to increase the opportunity and advance the work of the diversity of voices that make up the indie community. Jacques guest blogs today on that vision…