service Feedback On Device For Cinematic Distribution

[bingewave]

I don't get it. Where are they screening?

Any place that quality audio/video equipmemnt.
- Almost every church has a projector + sound systems
- Bars/Lounges/Restaurant have viewing rooms that they will allow free use if ppl buy food/drink
- Co-work spaces that want people in their space
- Community centers

List goes on.

 

[CelticRambler]

Take away that experience you have. How do you get the space? How do you know if they have good equipment? Most people do not know this and its a hassle.

OK, I think that might be a cultural difference thing again. I could probably ask any 7-year-old around here how to show a movie and they'd be able to tell me. It's part of what they learn in school, same as I did. These days, the medium is delivered on DVD or USB or streamed; in my day it came to the school on 16mm reels, later VHS; nowadays projected onto a suitable surface via a cable to a projector. The idea of screening a movie is "no big deal" for most people, certainly not the technical side or finding a venue. That just leaves marketing and licensing as elements that could be developed, and then only if the organisers concerned are bothered about either aspect.

 

[bingewave]

That just leaves marketing and licensing as elements that could be developed, and then only if the organisers concerned are bothered about either aspect.

Here is my vision for the future. You've created an awesome, quality film (good script, very good acting, great equipment, etc). It may not have any big names but its def worth the watch.

You may have gotten the Netflix/Hulu/Amazon deal, but your film won't be on VOD for another 3 months. Furthermore, you don't even know if the VOD service will promote it. Can you still make some cash out this film?

You come to Binge, we give 100 different coordinators that see your film, finding it interesting, and want to screen it. They setup the screenings and get 50 people per screening to come out and watch the film. No DVDs, reels , USB or hard drives are sent so no one is making copies of your film for Youtube. We do the delivery part.

At earning $4 a ticket sold at 100 screenings with 50 people showing up, you get $20k. Cash in your account 10 days later. You show the results to your VOD which validates people are willing to watch it, and they boost in their search rankings. The rights were acquired correctly, you were paid, and didn't do much work. @CelticRambler

 

[indietalk]

Okay I get it more now.

I think there is a better business model out there. Film festival delivery and projection in actual theaters. You sell a service and lease devices. You create a management software that lets them program the festival and control from an app. Then all a filmmaker has to do is upload their film, and the festival programs the order and brings the device. It is controlled from a phone app. When the festival ends they return the device. This provides a seamless process for filmmaker, festival, as well as venue, who does not have to be as involved. The entire program is brought in your device. A box. You can call it WithABox!

 

[bingewave]

I think there is a better business model out there. Film festival delivery and projection in actual theaters. You sell a service and lease devices. You create a management software that lets them program the festival and control from an app. Then all a filmmaker has to do is upload their film, and the festival programs the order and brings the device. It is controlled from a phone app. When the festival ends they return the device. This provides a seamless process for filmmaker, festival, as well as venue, who does not have to be as involved. The entire program is brought in your device. A box. You can call it WithABox!

Yes that is an awesome idea! Take away some of the complexity from running film festivals.

My vision though is bigger than film festivals. Festivals have great films but its not a constant thing. I like anime, I would love to watch new anime movies with other people but I can't because the current theater model doesn't support it. I want to build towards a vision like that, which creates more access for people of all genres. Anime fans, Nollywood, Bollywood, LBGTQ, etc, for each audience to be entitled to some form of cinematic release.

 

[directorik]

The more you explain this the more I like it.

Some of your talking points are less than convincing, but the overall
idea seems like a good one. What's on your current website doesn't
address most of what filmmakers care about – and I see you're taking
this all in.

I look forward to following along as you develop this plan. Hopefully
you'll stick around here at indietalk to keep us up to date.

 

[CelticRambler]

Here is my vision for the future. You've created an awesome, quality film (good script, very good acting, great equipment, etc). It may not have any big names but its def worth the watch.
...
You come to Binge, we give 100 different coordinators that see your film, finding it interesting, and want to screen it. They setup the screenings and get 50 people per screening to come out and watch the film. No DVDs, reels , USB or hard drives are sent so no one is making copies of your film for Youtube. We do the delivery part.

That side of the equation sounds quite reasonable, although I would stand by my earlier assertion that sooner or later, the film maker will have to spend money on getting their movie's name and/or trailer seen by one of those coordinators. Just about evey collaborative economy model that's come into existence with a promise to be a great equaliser has drifted towards sponsored ads and paid ranking upgrades. On those platforms that use a user-driven rating, if there's any commercial implication, it gets manipulated too. And if you don't have any kind of selection, you'll end up with a YouTube-like dump of all kinds of awfulness.

I don't see on the website how I, as a film-maker, can be reassured that my 15-minute short will have a good chance of being considered by the 100 coordinators. Neither do I see how I, as an organiser, can be reassured that I won't waste hours and hours trawling through a series of vanity-projects, student demos, clickbaity recycled footage ... So you'll need to put more thought into this part of the process.

We are against theaters, not for them. Hard pill to swallow at first, but companies like Airbnb/Uber and other had the same push back initially bc it was different.

That's pretty savage ... especially when you then cite AirbnB and Uber as an inspiration - two companies that have huge reputational issues. What if I'm someone who owns a cinema? Are you telling me that I can't sign up as a coordinator, even though I would dearly like to screen a range of non-mainstream films? There's a good reason why people still go to the cinema to watch movies - big screen, comfortable seats and good sound, to name three. When you move out of a purpose-built facility, you're going to compromise on one or more of these things - so now you're telling me (wearing my film-maker hat again) that my movie will not be seen in a cinema and will more than likely be viewed in suboptimal conditions by an audience that's only half paying attention ...

In your pitch, I would delete all references to AirbnB and Uber - don't hitch your wagon to companies that are being hauled through the courts and thrown out of towns/cities by the people who live there! And don't cut yourself off from a market that has the most experience in the screening of motion pictures. Instead, I would market this as "A collaborative platform for independent film distributors". There's deliberate ambiguity in that phrase: it's a platform for the distributors of independently-made films, and for independent distributors of films worth screening. This keeps your options open for expansion in the future, e.g. to specifically target small-town cinemas as collaborators, or to partner with a festival or film-school to offer a distribution package as a prize to really good productions.

 

[directorik]

CR mentions one of your points that I find unconvincing:

Do you mean the traditional method of theatrical distribution?
Or are you really against theaters?

All across the country there are wonderful independent theaters
run by people who are exactly like independent filmmakers. They
love movies, they love having a place where an audience can
gather an see a movie on the big screen.

And you are against this? Because they're in a theater?

Are you against hotels and taxis?

As you work on your messaging you might want to think about this

We are against theaters, not for them.

Theaters are a great place to screen movies.

 

[bingewave]

What if I'm someone who owns a cinema? Are you telling me that I can't sign up as a coordinator, even though I would dearly like to screen a range of non-mainstream films?

@directorik @CelticRambler So the answer to this question right now is "I'm not 100% sure". Our goals are too:

1. Keep ticket prices fair and at a equilibrium to maximize profit vs attendance
2. Give filmmakers the opportunity to make money through a release
3. Give us the ability to come out profitable
4. Improve marketing of the film

Does using the normal theater system, even if independent, allow those goals to be reached? Now if the filmmaker did not care about profitability OR had a budget set aside to do things like pay for theater space then using an independent theater may not matter. Point 1 to me is the biggest problem because the current model does not allow for pricing equilibrium that maximizes the two. Over time if we find we are able to do this, then normal theaters can be used. But in the US market, pricing vs experience is a problem for maximizing sales unless your Avengers.

There's a good reason why people still go to the cinema to watch movies - big screen, comfortable seats and good sound, to name three. When you move out of a purpose-built facility, you're going to compromise on one or more of these things - so now you're telling me (wearing my film-maker hat again) that my movie will not be seen in a cinema and will more than likely be viewed in suboptimal conditions by an audience that's only half paying attention ...

You don't need a theater to do this. Part of our process is when we prospect venues, we ask questions like:

1. What kind of projector are you using? Can it do 4k? 1080P? etc
2. What is the sound system like?
3. What is the screen size? 100 inch? 500 inch?

This also also intersects the understanding of what the audience wants and how much the filmmaker should be able to dictate. For example, one of our screenings is going to be halloween custome to party + film screening. It augments the experience for the audience who has said they desire this. What if the audience is happy watching an outdoor movie and bringing their own seats and laying on tarp? My personal belief is that the filmmaker should be concerned with the quality in how their content is being viewed that best brings out the quality of their work, not how the audience is choosing to experience it, especially if they are happy.

That's pretty savage ... especially when you then cite AirbnB and Uber as an inspiration

In reference to Airbnb, there is both good and bad depending on perspectives. From where I live, Airbnb has allowed people to make a living, especially when their normal jobs and pay are being cut. There are great Airbnbs I've been too and loved, and then there was the Airbnb I stayed at which was a crack house........yea no bueno.

But the real thing Airbnb, Lyft and other represents is the shift in thinking.

1. Who would allow a stranger to stay in their house?
2. Who would allow a stranger in their car and drive them around?

When a concept is new, its gets a lot of push back because people are use to certain ways of thinking. Years ago in 2006 during the phone iPhone, me and a few developers thought strongly they should open the platform up and allow us to build software for it. The majority of the other developers where avidly against this and thought it was stupid and bad for business. But look how the market turned out. Or people like Ignaz Semmelweis, who said "we could save lives in surgery if wash our hands first", and everyone thought that was a ludicrous proposal at the time.

My point is when something is radically different from the norm, its mostly met with push back, and that is was I reference with those companies.

 

[CelticRambler]

Our goals are too:
1. Keep ticket prices fair and at a equilibrium to maximize profit vs attendance

Ultimately, that's outside of your control. To take Airbnb as an example: I can charge whatever I want for the bed in my attic. For my own travels, I've only ever once found an Airbnb room that was cheaper than the equivalent "traditional" accommodation in the same city, and rather ironically, the owner complained that he wanted to advertise the bed at £1, but Airbnb insisted on a minimum of £10/nt.

What has happened in reality is that home-owners with space to let have increased their monthly rental rates to match the local tourist accommodation, sometimes hiking up the montly rate by four or five times what it was before. I can think of a dozen ways of adding extra fees on to your example above without passing any of the profit back to you or the film-maker.

I'm not saying that this isn't an ethically and morally good ambition - but it's overly simplistic, and risks being taken out of your hands once the service takes off.

You don't need a theater to do this.

Nope, you don't.But that doesn't change the fact that a proper screening room (cinema, theatre, movie-pod, picture-house, whatever you want to call it ...) will always be the best - and that's why you shouldn't actively exclude independent/arthouse cinemas (and certainly not from the get-go).

On the other had

What if the audience is happy watching an outdoor movie and bringing their own seats and laying on tarp?

I cited above several examples of non-traditional venues where I've seen movies on my travels. There's an independent French docufilm, Le Grand Bal, that's been doing the rounds in France (and neighbouring countries) over the last year that's had hundreds of screenings in all kinds of venues - cafés, libraries, dance-halls, open air ... and cinemas. In almost all of those situations, it was shown (mostly for free) as part of an added value package to an audience that were coming to a related event. This demonstrates that your concept has a real-world application - but you already have competition.

 

[bingewave]

Ultimately, that's outside of your control. To take Airbnb as an example: I can charge whatever I want for the bed in my attic.

@CelticRambler I 100% agree right now it is over-simplistic, and also to your point its because the concept has not scaled to the point where it has "real" issues yet.

We also have to account the difference in markets. Using your Airbnb example, your in the EU and I'm in the United States. I live in Atlanta but I often travel to NY and San Francisco. Normally in NY and San Fran, I can't find a hotel under $150 per night, but I can easily find Airbnbs for $45 a night. This might be also different for rural vs city markets.

How this might translate to our model in the US, the price for rural area for movie tickets might be the same in theaters or out of theaters - $8 per ticket. But if we move to cities like San Fran or NY where tickets can easily go to $17, like Airbnb in those areas we might be able to hold a far cheaper rate. But that is still tbd on how the model holds, so yes 100% agree about the current state being over simplistic.

As far the pricing per ticket, I think we can also head towards a demand-based model eventually. So movies that are in higher demand can charge higher amounts vs movies that are less quality will charge lower. I think at scale the filmmaker would have to take consideration things @directorik talked about before as a way to have a demand-based pricing model (way in the future):

• Big named actors
• Who the director/producer
• Who is distributing it

 

[Sweetie]

I wish you luck in your endeavours.

I was hoping it would be a tech play. The number of people I know who have gone down the distribution route and gone broke is too long for me to care to remember.

Everytime I see something that is trying to be too good to be believed, it usually is.

From what I see, as soon as you start touching the money, you're going to need way more margin to operate sustainably than your $1 from the $3/$3/$1 split. I cannot see how you'd fund expansion or have enough meat to raise much needed money.

On top of that, reeducating the public to another way to see film is likely to be expensive.... especially with the trend pushing (Netflix etc) towards watching from home. There are ways around those costs but I'm not sure you will be able to scale it. Who knows, you might find a way.... though If you do, you should be pushing other business ideas... you'd be wasting your talents in this business.

Not to mention (Did I just mention it) the potential litigation.

Note Airbnb and Uber both had large war chests early in the piece. Not sure if you have a decent war chest, but if you're here, I'd bet now. A downside to being small is a big player can see your moves. If you gain traction, some vc raises $50kk, beats you to a bloody pulp and uses the idea to bolster big budget films.

If you continue, I have one suggestion. You need your Steve Jobs. You need someone to tell and sell your story.

 

[directorik]

@directorik @CelticRambler So the answer to this question right now is "I'm not 100% sure". Our goals are too:

1. Keep ticket prices fair and at a equilibrium to maximize profit vs attendance
2. Give filmmakers the opportunity to make money through a release
3. Give us the ability to come out profitable
4. Improve marketing of the film

Does using the normal theater system, even if independent, allow those goals to be reached?

Absolutely!

1: Your plan of offering $3 to the theater, $3 to the filmmaker and $1 to you
seems fair. Many theaters would go for that because they keep the concession
money exactly like your list on other types of venues:

"Bars/Lounges/Restaurant have viewing rooms that they will allow free use if ppl buy food/drink"

In addition a theater already has seats and a screen that most Bars/Lounges/Restaurant
do not have saving YOU the expense of bringing those in and setting up. And far better
screens and projectors than most co-work spaces and community centers.

2: It's not a “release” if it's a one-off screening. Four or five days in one venue would give
filmmakers more opportunity to make money. Very few Bars/Lounges/Restaurant will offer
that.

3: At $1 per ticket it seems like you're heading down the “Movie Pass” business model.
You will need to take more than that soon which changes 1 and 2. You either have to charge
more per ticket or take some of the money you were giving filmmakers. Just like any distributor.

For the screening of "See You Yesterday" you got 60 plus people. So you made, say, $65.
Did you make a profit? What if you had a 250 seat theater and got 150 plus people? What
if you charged $10 per ticket, gave the venue $3, the filmmaker $4 and you took $2? On
that one screening you would have doubled your profit.

 

[bingewave]

I wish you luck in your endeavours.

I was hoping it would be a tech play.

@Sweetie How is not a tech play? Or what is your vision of a tech play?

Everytime I see something that is trying to be too good to be believed, it usually is.

I am assuming your talking about projects like Distribber and its recent blow-up. Yes it happens unfortunately. We are entering a new era where there is a lot of opportunity but also risk. MoviePass failed but its failure gave rise to a new business model theater chains have, subscriptions.

From what I see, as soon as you start touching the money, you're going to need way more margin to operate sustainably than your $1 from the $3/$3/$1 split. I cannot see how you'd fund expansion or have enough meat to raise much needed money.

Yes 100% agree. We actually don't see ourselves making money off the ticket sales. Keeping ticket prices low increases the audience size. We have revenues streams we will be deploying that will leverage that increased audience size and 10x our margins.

especially with the trend pushing (Netflix etc) towards watching from home.

Not true, and I think failed companies like MoviePass or $7 movie nights + $5 any size popcorn at certian theater chains prove that issue is a pricing problem. I'm actually about to publish a study that shows areas with cheaper movie ticket prices have a higher ratio of population in that area vs the number of frequent movie goers.

Note Airbnb and Uber both had large war chests early in the piece. Not sure if you have a decent war chest, but if you're here, I'd bet now. A downside to being small is a big player can see your moves.

Right, Ubers first investor was between 500k and $1 million. Here is their deck. Airbnbs I think was 50k from Y-Combinator.

Currently I am either going to do a raise from Seed and Spark crowding or go after a few angels in the space. I've found film investors typically avoid startup investments.

 

[Sweetie]

>>How is not a tech play? Or what is your vision of a tech play?

>>Its both, a new distribution play that leverages technology. The model is like Airbnb in how we don't use theater, and have created a gig-economy for film screenings.

Usually when the founder says its a distribution play leveraging tech, it's more about distribution than tech. Just reading what you said. Nothing wrong with being a distribution play. No need to be defensive.

I was hoping you'd be some math prodigy who improved the data compression/encryption. That'd be exciting.

>>Yes 100% agree. We actually don't see ourselves making money off the ticket sales. Keeping ticket prices low increases the audience size. We have revenues streams we will be deploying that will leverage that increased audience size and 10x our margins.

I hope you're right. That was also the plan of MoviePass.

>>Yes 100% agree. We actually don't see ourselves making money off the ticket sales. Keeping ticket prices low increases the audience size. We have revenues streams we will be deploying that will leverage that increased audience size and 10x our margins.

Keeping ticket prices low is sometimes discounting for the sake of discounting. Personally I see the $3/$3/$1 is making the same assumption that Hollywood does: Each film is worth the same.

>>prove that issue is a pricing problem.

Assuming you're right and it's a pricing issue... also assuming that consumers don't care about the convenience of watching in the comfort of their own home, how do you plan to compete with Netflix's $10/month, all you can eat?

Look, you have an interesting concept. I think it's missing something, but that's just me. You could be spot on for all I know.

While I cannot explain it, my gut is saying: Drop the low price focus and go for an Immersive Experience. I think I read you saying that these are more like events. That could be your market play. A curated experience for the viewer. Maybe building friendships with those with similar interests.

Take for example. I was talking with a lady last week whose place she lives at it being bused to some play. Creating frequent experience events for groups in areas, curating content that appeals to the particular market you have easy access. Base it around user groups perhaps and grow into new areas from that. Laser focus of an area where you have an advantage lets you dominate. Think books with Amazon in their early days.

Kind of a take it or leave it info. No skin off my nose either way.

Anyway, it's late here. Time for bed. Hope I made some sense.

 

[bingewave]

I was hoping you'd be some math prodigy who improved the data compression/encryption. That'd be exciting.

Haha! I am a computer engineer but I despise math, enjoy logic though. If you're a fan of the TV series Silicon Valley, that sounds like the PiedPiper video compression algorithm. Maybe in the future when I am able to hire and pay someone much smarter than me.

I hope you're right. That was also the plan of MoviePass.

I feel conflicted being compared to MoviePass. While yes it did fail, it also had a huge impact. I think MoviePass would have been successful if it was VC backed currently instead of already being acquired, because working with VCs is about massive growth, acquisition or IPO, and then make it someone else problem to figure out how to make it profitable.

But I've gotten some good ideas already from people like @CelticRambler and @directorik on how to increase margins. One realization is that maybe a film should have "no budget" but a minimal marketing budget like 5k to 10k. I think one of the best points is at scale with lots of options to choose from, marketplaces become paid promotion models. As we cross that bridge, I likely will explore that.

Keeping ticket prices low is sometimes discounting for the sake of discounting. Personally I see the $3/$3/$1 is making the same assumption that Hollywood does: Each film is worth the same.

Thinking more on a point that @directorik made. If a movie has certain prestige to it, like A-List Actors or Directors, then the model should be priced to reflect that prestige. Like $5/$3/$1.

Kind of a take it or leave it info. No skin off my nose either way.

Absolutely, I appreciate and read all the comments made, and incorporate what I can where it fits. Thank you again for giving your perspective, @Sweetie

 

[CelticRambler]

maybe a film should have "no budget" but a minimal marketing budget like 5k to 10k.

Who'd be expected to put up that money?

And for clarification, in your 3/3/1 division of receipts, am I (in my organiser's costume) getting 3 as the "venue" or 1 ?

Both of these aspects would seriously challenge the "Airbnb"-style approach that you're proposing.

I see a service such as this as being a convenient way to add well-made movies to a concurrent event, with all the details of screening fees and licensing wrapped up in a convenient package. BUT in a situation such as that, I would find it impossible to predict how many people might turn up for a screening, and may not even be able to count the number of people who did turn up. In this context, therefore, I'd need a fixed rate for the rental, similar to the performing rights packages offered in respect of live music (e.g. here in France, when organising a programme of 5 groups that'll play a mixture of traditional and new melodies, it's possible to buy a "whatever" licence for a fixed amount based on an expected audience of less than 100, 100-250, 250-500 or >500. At the end of the night, you fill in a form listing all the copyright-protected pieces that were played during the evening, send it back to the licensing agency and they sort out who gets how many cents each.

 

[directorik]

And for clarification, in your 3/3/1 division of receipts, am I (in my organiser's costume) getting 3 as the "venue" or 1 ?

By splitting the payment. For a ticket that is $7, the person hosting the screening keeps $3, the filmmaker keeps the other $3 and we keep $1.

My assumption is "the person hosting the screening" and my term "venue"
are one and the same.

 

[CelticRambler]

My assumption is "the person hosting the screening" and my term "venue" are one and the same.

Ah, yes - so he said on page 1! Got in a muddle with the other posters citing the example ...

OK, so who's setting the ticket price - me (the organiser) or you (service provider) or the film-maker?

I (sometimes) sell artwork on Zazzle where there's a recommended royalty per piece that I'm allowed change (up or down) if I want. I also (sometimes) offer car-sharing, where the site recommends a price for each segment of the journey that I'm allowed change (up or down) if I want. In neither case - same as Airbnb - do I have any control over the service provider's fee.

As a customer, sometimes I'm shown the total price, which is the only thing that matters; sometimes (e.g. Airbnb) I'm given a click-baity price that gets inflated as I go through the booking process. I realise that this might be yet another trans-Atlantic cultural thing, as here in Europe customers must be given the final all-inclusive price up front, and a breakdown of the taxes and charges later, if at all.

Between the two, I look at that 3/3/1 and see that the first 3 is irrelevant to me as an organiser: it's not your role to tell me how much to charge for my event ... and this is what I was referring to in an earlier post. Once you release the service into the wild, you lose control of this element, and can't sell the service on the basis of guaranteed lower cost cinema tickets unless you're also handling the payment processing - and that's a whole other kettle of fish-headed vipers! But if you're not selling the tickets, how can you ensure that you're charging enough/not too much - you'll have no control over the number of people who watch the film, unless I tell you how many I sold tickets too ... and what happens if I just give the tickets away for free ... ?

Another example: I go to traditional music-&-dance events all over France, each one with 1-3 live bands performing over about 4-5 hours. The ticket price is set by the organising committee of each event, based on their hall rental fees, what deal they can negotiate with the band (e.g. reduced travel expenses if they're already playing in the area), what sponsorship they can get and (of course) how many people they hope will turn up and spend generously at the bar. As a rule, the average ticket price in my part of the country is 6-8€; over by the German border it's 10-12€. But I'm also part of the organising committee of a big local festival, and we'll get the same bands from both areas, plus another ten (so 15-20 altogether) and charge ... 5€ for a 21hr pass. Those smaller events get around 100-250 people; we get 5000.

How do you translate that to a late-night film screening or an all-day film-fest ?

 

[bingewave]

Who'd be expected to put up that money?

@CelticRambler Based on feedback here, I am changing my messaging from "No Budget" to "Limited Budgets". Looking at articles like this one that describe the different release types for movies: https://americanfilmmarket.com/how-many-independent-films-get-a-theatrical-release/

83% of movies get Small, Nominal and no release. 43% of movies get Small or Nominal release, which means 43% have some budget for this. When the filmmaker is raising, its there responsibility to set some budget for post-production expenses that include distribution. Lets see the value is an random number of $5k. What is going to give them the most bang for their buck?

Route 1 Theaters:

• 1 screen in a theater cost $200 to $500. Lets say $250.
• To market that 1 screening, $150 is spent on print and advertising, you don't hire someone (ie, street team) to do placement but do it yourself. This is your TIME
• Then another $300 is spent on digital campaigns to capture audience attention
• $300 + $150 + $250 = $700 per screening in a theater (lowballing here).

Route 2 Binge(high ball scenario):

• Use coordinator to find venue and do screening.
• Many venues are free use BUT if the filmmaker wanted something a little upscale, $80 per hour works.
• 2 hour screen * $80 an hour = $160.
• Coordinators markets to their audience in their down. You put $100 towards a a re-targeting campaign to help the coordinator digital campaign
• Maybe another $100 toward print and advertising, that is given to the Coordinator to hand out. But this is NOT your time being used.
• $160 + $200 + $100 = $360 per screening

At a 5k budget:

• If the theater route is used, that is 7 screenings
• If the Binge route is used, that is 13 screenings

If the filmmaker did have a budget, I think they would have to break it down per the above to see which one would give them most bang for their buck.

And for clarification, in your 3/3/1 division of receipts, am I (in my organiser's costume) getting 3 as the "venue" or 1 ?

Organizer/Venue is the same and $3. The organizer must be incentivized enough to promote your work and organize the event.

In this context, therefore, I'd need a fixed rate for the rental, similar to the performing rights packages offered

Here is where risk vs reward comes into play. Fixed fees paid upfront mitigate risk but lessen the reward. Lets say for example you are getting $3 per ticket OR a license fee of $200 for 100 people.

If 5 people show up, 5 * $3 = $15, you win and have maximized your profit! If 70 people show up, 70 * $3 = $210, and anything above that you start to loss out on profits. Also having people "self report" is a huge problem. Who wants to pay the next license tier if 102 people show up.

Also when charging license, what you are screening has to be in demand to get people to pay the license.