Online distribution success stories?

[win edson]

Hi everyone!

I've just finished my low budget (£700) romantic comedy that I shot in 7 days then took 2 years to complete in post!! I'm cutting the trailer and working on the poster now.

My question is, has anyone out there turned a decent profit from distributing online? When I say decent profit, I'm talking over $10,000... After working as long as I have on this project, a few hundred dollars isn't going to excite me, but I do know times are tough.

I'm looking at all my options for distribution.

Thanks

Win

 

[finderskeepers]

The issue with your Scott Pilgrim example is that fact that you saw the trailer because of millions of dollars spent on marketing that an indie movie will not have. If you have this "awesome" indie trailer and nobody sees it then that won't really work. (By the way, I personally didn't want to see SP from the trailer, but that's me) I believe when some raises money and sells their movie online and then makes a profit AND has the whole thing well documented by third parties; banks or whatever. Then we'll believe it. It just seems like we'd see someone interviewed on a talk show or something if they really did it. Sorry for being so skeptical.

I barely pay to watch anything outside of theaters or Netflix, as well. Won't even take the time to sign up for FREE on HuLu; I hear ya. But, there aren't a lot of people like me, and on the same token, there aren't a lot of indies making content for me, either.

If Scott Pilgrim had been an internet release and it cost 29.99 to get it on iTunes, only place you could get it, I would've paid or it just based on the trailer. Instead I sawr it in theaters (20.00) and then I bought the Blu Ray release day (25.00).

If Attack the Block had been an interbutts release and it cost me 9.99 a month to watch it exclusively somewhere online, I would've paid for it just from the trailer. Instead, I sawr it in theaters 4 times (2 times free although I paid for popcorn etc so about 30.00) and 2 times paid (40.00) and I am finally up enough to get the blu ray when I go to get Modern Warfare 3 (25.00)

I will consume what's made for me.

I will not watch someone's "artistic" vision if it looks and sounds like I accidentally hit record on my iPhone. Much less pay for it.



You'll be depressed if it's My bank statements! haha. I ate a cheese danish for dinner the night before last. xD

 

[Kholi]

The issue with your Scott Pilgrim example is that fact that you saw the trailer because of millions of dollars spent on marketing that an indie movie will not have.

My point is that no indies are doing Scott Pilgrim.

They're doing tiny stories with bad acting and bad cinematography, low production values, so on and so forth.

If they were doing Scott Pilgrim even on a small level and it's watchable, fun, funny etc. then people like me would spread the word about it by mouth.

That more clear?

I believe when some raises money and sells their movie online and then makes a profit AND has the whole thing well documented by third parties; banks or whatever. Then we'll believe it. It just seems like we'd see someone on interviewed on a talk show or something if they did it.

Why would you think that? There are people who make a lot of money every day... they aren't on talk shows or out talking about it.

In fact, Kyle would probably be a little annoyed with me for revealing that he's been successful with his methods.

Not everyone wants to be famous, not everyone wants to sell their secrets for free. He won't even tell me how he got so many Facebook followers.

Sorry for being so skeptical.

Hey, no need to apologize to me. In all reality, the more skeptical you are the less likely you are to actually try it, which means there's one less person out there for distributors or consumers to see.

Although I don't believe anyone who can pick up a camera is competition in any way... those people are only making it easier for the rest of us.

 

[finderskeepers]

Bottom line Kholi: YOU do it. Document it. Come back and show us. Then I'll congratulate you on being right.

My point is that no indies are doing Scott Pilgrim.

They're doing tiny stories with bad acting and bad cinematography, low production values, so on and so forth.

If they were doing Scott Pilgrim even on a small level and it's watchable, fun, funny etc. then people like me would spread the word about it by mouth.

That more clear?



Why would you think that? There are people who make a lot of money every day... they aren't on talk shows or out talking about it.

In fact, Kyle would probably be a little annoyed with me for revealing that he's been successful with his methods.

Not everyone wants to be famous, not everyone wants to sell their secrets for free. He won't even tell me how he got so many Facebook followers.




Hey, no need to apologize to me. In all reality, the more skeptical you are the less likely you are to actually try it, which means there's one less person out there for distributors or consumers to see.

Although I don't believe anyone who can pick up a camera is competition in any way... those people are only making it easier for the rest of us.

 

[Kholi]

Bottom line Kholi: YOU do it. Document it. Come back and show us. Then I'll congratulate you on being right.

You're basically asking me to work hard for you then tell you how I did it in detail so it's easier for you.

Even if I did, it doesn't matter if you can't produce content at certain quality level.

And, on the flipside, why would I tell you?

In fact? You know what you made me realize? That it's not worth the effort to share facts that should be positive beacons for people in my position.

It's a waste of time and energy.

All this time I spent going back and forth with you doesn't amount to anything, and it could've been spent editing more on the script.

 

[finderskeepers]

NOW I agree with you 100% let's get back to our scripts

You're basically asking me to work hard for you then tell you how I did it in detail so it's easier for you.

Even if I did, it doesn't matter if you can't produce content at certain quality level.

And, on the flipside, why would I tell you?

In fact? You know what you made me realize? That it's not worth the effort to share facts that should be positive beacons for people in my position.

It's a waste of time and energy.

All this time I spent going back and forth with you doesn't amount to anything, and it could've been spent editing more on the script.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

There is a profit to be made selling films online, make something that a large demographic wants to pay for (see: sci-fi, horror with baseline cinematic production value) or a strong paying niche market wants to believe in enough to push and pay for...

Weird thing is, hardly anyone is doing that.

Stack onto that the lack of knowledge and skill in networking and building audience and you have your problem.

I have to disagree. There ARE filmmakers skilled in networking and building audiences yet they're not rolling in dough either. Granted these people have the best chance at actually making a profit, but the filmmaking community doesn't consist of a bunch of slackers not doing what it takes to make a profit.

You can't count the hits and ignore the misses. For every filmmaker that actually earns back all production costs and end up with a profit of $10,000, there are hundreds, likely thousands, who put in equally the same time and money marketing their film and failed to break even.

 

[Kholi]

I have to disagree. There ARE filmmakers skilled in networking and building audiences yet they're not rolling in dough either. Granted these people have the best chance at actually making a profit, but the filmmaking community doesn't consist of a bunch of slackers not doing what it takes to make a profit.

You can't count the hits and ignore the misses. For every filmmaker that actually earns back all production costs and end up with a profit of $10,000, there are hundreds, likely thousands, who put in equally the same time and money marketing their film and failed to break even.

I think you missed my point... I said there're hardly any no names no budgets making content that someone wants to pay for...


If you feel differently, show me their work. Is it worth paying for to anyone but them or other no name filmmakers?

I'm very curious as to why the quality of work is never brought up as a reason that they don't do anything???

It's always the system, luck, chance, fluke, etc etc...

But, never the actual quality of the content or what the content is.

It's like the people singing these hymns think that all filmmakers are created equal, and by equal I mean good.

No... no that is far from the case.

 

[finderskeepers]

I think the quality is seperate issue because we are assuming the films are worth watching. EVERYONE here agrees that a garbage film won't go far. For sake of example we are talking about taking a "GOOD" film and selling it online. YES there are tons of terrible indie films out there of course, we all agree. The question is "Can I take a Good Film and selli it online and make a profit?" We are hoping for examples of good indies that made their money back. The quality is assumed. Like saying you need good wheels to win a car race. The questions is really can this new "engine" take us across the finish line. IF everything else works on the car. (including the driver)
That's how I see it.

I think you missed my point... I said there're hardly any no names no budgets making content that someone wants to pay for...


If you feel differently, show me their work. Is it worth paying for to anyone but them or other no name filmmakers?

I'm very curious as to why the quality of work is never brought up as a reason that they don't do anything???

It's always the system, luck, chance, fluke, etc etc...

But, never the actual quality of the content or what the content is.

It's like the people singing these hymns think that all filmmakers are created equal, and by equal I mean good.

No... no that is far from the case.

 

[Kholi]

Your criteria baffles me. The quality doesn't matter because you're assuming that the quality is good? So we're just asking a very basic question:

Can you sell a film ONLY online and make a profit?

Okay...

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/colum...w-movie-no-budget-huge-profit-exclusive-28989

Yes... and now, I've given you press and "interviews" to back it up. They twittered -- that was their marketing.

But now, out of the woodwork come the people who say "They're known directors, and the actress is known, and they had good locations etc etc."

... anyone else confused? Is it JUST me?

 

[brianluce]

I know it's conventional wisdom that a name actor dramatically boosts your chances of success. I have to wonder though, I get a Moneyball vibe from the concept and always have -- moneyball in the sense that like MLB, people misread the metrics and draw false conclusions. Right away, Paranormal Activity is a 3 headed no name cash monster right. Isn't a lot of TV no name? Or shows like FRIENDS that start with no names who proceed to become names because, as Kholi keeps intimating, content rules the day, and content is often independent of some branded acting name. Sure Tom Cruise will put butts in seats, but a lot of indies grovel for 4th tier B listers like it's a silver bullet. I think the silver bullet isn't some washed up has been or never was that you mortgage your house to hire, along with your new Red Scarlet, but instead, it's a great concept that's well executed. Could it be? I wonder how many no name movies with cool scripts and good execution are languishing on Vimeo with 17 views.

 

[directorik]

I know quite a few people, personally, in my circle that have had great success with online distribution and do not have names, etc.

That’s encouraging news. I love stories of success.

I tend to believe that hard work and making a good film isn’t
enough. I have seen so many excellent movies that cannot find an
audience. I have seen many filmmakers work very, very hard and
still not find an audience even with horror and sci-fi and amazing
production value.

But since in your circle many filmmakers succeed in turning a profit
via on line distribution, I can understand why you have a different
point of view. I look forward to when you have the time to mention
the names of the films. I will even do what I have never done - pay
to watch a couple of them on line.

 

[finderskeepers]

to clarify, got anything with unknown actors and unknown director? Without 84,776 twitter followers from a TV show ( I guess I'm one of the "coming out of the woodwork people

QUOTE=Kholi;231713]Your criteria baffles me. The quality doesn't matter because you're assuming that the quality is good? So we're just asking a very basic question:

Can you sell a film ONLY online and make a profit?

Okay...

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/colum...w-movie-no-budget-huge-profit-exclusive-28989

Yes... and now, I've given you press and "interviews" to back it up. They twittered -- that was their marketing.

But now, out of the woodwork come the people who say "They're known directors, and the actress is known, and they had good locations etc etc."

... anyone else confused? Is it JUST me?[/QUOTE]

 

[Kholi]

to clarify, got anything with unknown actors and unknown director? Without 84,776 twitter followers from a TV show ( I guess I'm one of the "coming out of the woodwork people

Yeah, you are one of the woodwork people. But, I know what you want: you want someone to tell you exactly how to do it so you can emulate their success. Again, it doesn't matter if I give you the blue print to make a water powered car. If you don't understand how it works, you won't be able to build one.

 

[Kholi]

That’s encouraging news. I love stories of success.

I tend to believe that hard work and making a good film isn’t
enough. I have seen so many excellent movies that cannot find an
audience. I have seen many filmmakers work very, very hard and
still not find an audience even with horror and sci-fi and amazing
production value.

That's fair enough. My question would be: What do you consider amazing production value, good acting, decent script?

What's your "it" factor?

But since in your circle many filmmakers succeed in turning a profit
via on line distribution, I can understand why you have a different
point of view. I look forward to when you have the time to mention
the names of the films. I will even do what I have never done - pay
to watch a couple of them on line.

Not circle, people that I have spoken to and know of, or associated with. I know a handful, but I did give two examples that you can go and find right now.

InSearchOf
Standing Firm

Also try Faith Granger's Period Piece and Hot Rod Film:

Deuce of Spades

Made for less than I'm finishing my feature for, and she's done a good three or four times my budget in sales across the US, from online distribution and travelling/four-walling it. I don't even know if it's hit iTunes yet, but she's selling the DVDs from her site.

I know more people that've had successful distribution deals. Successful meaning they've secured advances in excess of their budgets and managed to keep certain rights.

You have a point, though, I would be less optimistic if the other viewpoint was all that I was exposed to and knew.

I know it's conventional wisdom that a name actor dramatically boosts your chances of success. I have to wonder though, I get a Moneyball vibe from the concept and always have -- moneyball in the sense that like MLB, people misread the metrics and draw false conclusions. Right away, Paranormal Activity is a 3 headed no name cash monster right. Isn't a lot of TV no name? Or shows like FRIENDS that start with no names who proceed to become names because, as Kholi keeps intimating, content rules the day, and content is often independent of some branded acting name. Sure Tom Cruise will put butts in seats, but a lot of indies grovel for 4th tier B listers like it's a silver bullet. I think the silver bullet isn't some washed up has been or never was that you mortgage your house to hire, along with your new Red Scarlet, but instead, it's a great concept that's well executed. Could it be? I wonder how many no name movies with cool scripts and good execution are languishing on Vimeo with 17 views.

This is what I mean. But for some reason, the consensus is that there are thousands of these well executed no budget no named pieces?

The reason that the success stories are scarce is because the well-executed work is scarce. I dunno how to make that any clearer.

If the basic question is: Can you sell your movie online and make a profit?

The obvious answer is yes.

If the "slightly modified" question is: Can you sell your movie with no stars and no named talent at all and make a profit?

There has to be some sort of criteria. The answer is: is your movie worth paying 10 dollars for?

Take yourself out of the picture, look at it, then answer it.

 

[finderskeepers]

I found this time.com article from 2009 about a parody film Star Wreck that was released online for free BUT developed a following that purchased thousands of dollars of T-shirts and merchandise.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1950005,00.html
I would say YES, that proves the RIGHT kind of no budget film can generate a profit online if promoted properly.

That’s encouraging news. I love stories of success.

I tend to believe that hard work and making a good film isn’t
enough. I have seen so many excellent movies that cannot find an
audience. I have seen many filmmakers work very, very hard and
still not find an audience even with horror and sci-fi and amazing
production value.

But since in your circle many filmmakers succeed in turning a profit
via on line distribution, I can understand why you have a different
point of view. I look forward to when you have the time to mention
the names of the films. I will even do what I have never done - pay
to watch a couple of them on line.

 

[Kholi]

I found this time.com article from 2009 about a parody film Star Wreck that was released online for free BUT developed a following that purchased thousands of dollars of T-shirts and merchandise.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1950005,00.html
I would say YES, that proves the RIGHT kind of no budget film can generate a profit online if promoted properly.

But it's based on Star Trek... that's no different than having a Twitter Followship...

 

[brianluce]

I found this time.com article from 2009 about a parody film Star Wreck that was released online for free BUT developed a following that purchased thousands of dollars of T-shirts and merchandise.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1950005,00.html

See, this is why I keep insisting that indies need a cut of that concession action! Muscle in dudes! You're leaving money on the table!
Look at it this way, we can bust our assess and still somehow end up with a lousy movie, but ANYONE, even I, can make yummy popcorn and push a button on soda machine.

Here's what I think is the big secret, writing a great script is the third hardest thing in the world, second hardest thing in the world is taking that awesome script and doing it justice as a director, hardest thing in the world is coming up with the killer concept. If you can do those three things, I don't believe distribution is going to be that hard relative to the aforementioned.

EDIT: Actually perhaps the hardest thing might really be taking a lousy movie and expecting a ROI via online distribution.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Remember folks, this is a thread about turning a profit.

The secret to a successful $$$ return on your film is ALL in the marketing. The actual contents of your film is secondary.

A well-marketed poorly made film will make FAR more money than a poorly-marketed GREAT film.

So, with that in mind, discussion of production values et. al., is rather meaningless in this thread is it not?

I know quite a few people, personally, in my circle that have had great success with online distribution and do not have names, etc.

Please define "great success". When you say "quite a few", exactly how many? Of those, how many didn't achieve "great success" and how many didn't even make it into your "circle".

I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but rather pointing out the fallacy of using the 'picking the hits and ignoring the misses' argument.

 

[Kholi]

Remember folks, this is a thread about turning a profit.

The secret to a successful $$$ return on your film is ALL in the marketing. The actual contents of your film is secondary.

A well-marketed poorly made film will make FAR more money than a poorly-marketed GREAT film.

So, with that in mind, discussion of production values et. al., is rather meaningless in this thread is it not?

You're basically saying I can turn on an iPhone, shoot a movie about my space heater, then sell it because I spent a lot of money marketing it?

That the content you actually create has no baring on how much you sell?

Am I getting this right?

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

You're basically saying I can turn on an iPhone, shoot a movie about my space heater, then sell it because I spent a lot of money marketing it?

That the content you actually create has no baring on how much you sell?

Am I getting this right?

Yes, Siree!

Americans are suckers. Its all in the marketing. Sorry to burst your dream.

(Of course, having a great film makes you less of a huckster and you'll be able to sleep better at night not having taken money for a space heater film.)