Online distribution success stories?

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
 
You don't know me, so you don't know what I want. Seriously, you are going WAY WAY Off the topic here. :lol:
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.
 
No it's totally different. One film used a name actor with a twitter following that requires some conection with the actor. ANYONE on this forum can make a Star Trek Parody. However, not everyone can get an actor with a large twitter following in their film.
But it's based on Star Trek... that's no different than having a Twitter Followship...
 
No it's totally different. One film used a name actor with a twitter following that requires some conection with the actor. ANYONE on this forum can make a Star Trek Parody. However, not everyone can get an actor with a large twitter following in their film.

... I guess Star Trek (millions of followers) doesn't equate to an actress from a TV Show (87K followers)...


...

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.)


=T You didn't burst any dream I had.

But, it's clear we're from different planets so we'll just agree to completely disagree.
 
No it doesn't because like I said we can ALL film a Star Trek parody but getting the twitter powered actor is a bit more difficult. TWO very different things.
... I guess Star Trek (millions of followers) doesn't equate to an actress from a TV Show (87K followers)...


...




=T You didn't burst any dream I had.

But, it's clear we're from different planets so we'll just agree to completely disagree.
 
It's really NOT all just marketing smoke and mirrors. William Goldman and others have said movies heavily rely on word of mouth. That hasn't changed much asaik. If it was just marketing, there'd be no reason whatsoever for test screenings -- which remain a staple of the industry. At some point you need to actually deliver a product. Got some cynical ex ad people 'round here. The problem with trying to sell crap is people can smell it.

A lot is made about movie posters, they are critical and are part of the marketing. But a poster delivers the concept -- it's analogous to a logline. No cool concept, no cool poster.
 
It's really NOT all just marketing smoke and mirrors. William Goldman and others have said movies heavily rely on word of mouth. That hasn't changed much asaik. If it was just marketing, there'd be no reason whatsoever for test screenings -- which remain a staple of the industry. At some point you need to actually deliver a product. Got some cynical ex ad people 'round here. The problem with trying to sell crap is people can smell it.

A lot is made about movie posters, they are critical and are part of the marketing. But a poster delivers the concept -- it's analogous to a logline. No cool concept, no cool poster.

=[ Why are these things so hard for me to explain? Please help me, Brian.
 
No it doesn't because like I said we can ALL film a Star Trek parody but getting the twitter powered actor is a bit more difficult. TWO very different things.

I'd say the opposite. You get near a major branded franchise like STAR TREK and you'll be vaporized by major studio death rays faster than you can say "Beam me up!" They've got Attorneys that make Darth Vader look like Mother Teresa.
 
Here is the very simplest answer:

Star Trek fans will buy anything related to Star Trek. They will talk about anything Star Trek Fan related amongst themselves and pass the word around. They'll buy Star Trek Fan related material because they like it alot.

People liked that actress. They will talk about that actress and things she has worked in and pass the word around. They'll buy what she's in because they like her a lot.


I dunno if I can get much more basic than that.

Sarcastic apology not acceoted ;)

No, unfortunately that was a very sincere apology. It's very frustrating that you don't understand what I'm saying. So I keep trying in hopes that a light bulb will go on.

It may be futile, but it is a goal.
 
Sorry, for being such a lost cause.:lol: I get it there's a "fan" dynamic in both cases.
Obviously. It's pointless to discuss the difference.
I agree there's money to be made made in online distribution in SOME Cases.
Is there anything left to disagree on? ;)
Here is the very simplest answer:

Star Trek fans will buy anything related to Star Trek. They will talk about anything Star Trek Fan related amongst themselves and pass the word around. They'll buy Star Trek Fan related material because they like it alot.

People liked that actress. They will talk about that actress and things she has worked in and pass the word around. They'll buy what she's in because they like her a lot.


I dunno if I can get much more basic than that.



No, unfortunately that was a very sincere apology. It's very frustrating that you don't understand what I'm saying. So I keep trying in hopes that a light bulb will go on.

It may be futile, but it is a goal.
 
It's really NOT all just marketing smoke and mirrors. William Goldman and others have said movies heavily rely on word of mouth. That hasn't changed much asaik. If it was just marketing, there'd be no reason whatsoever for test screenings -- which remain a staple of the industry. At some point you need to actually deliver a product. Got some cynical ex ad people 'round here. The problem with trying to sell crap is people can smell it.

A lot is made about movie posters, they are critical and are part of the marketing. But a poster delivers the concept -- it's analogous to a logline. No cool concept, no cool poster.

Getting people to start talking about your film IS marketing. Posters, concept, logline, et al is marketing. After you've taken the money from people who just watched your pile of poop, you can keep aiming for those who haven't heard the bad reviews and there will be plenty -- ONLY if you put the time in to market it.

No one here intentionally creates poop to sell. Of course you want to test screen, by doing so you'll have better tools to market with. The point is (again) marketing is your only path to $$$, more important than the actual film.

As for the ex-ad cynic comment, I'm not an ad person, nor have I ever sold advertising, in fact, most forms of advertising is wrong for indie films. I am, however, someone who is a bit savvy in marketing media-related items (including early versions of my feature film).
 
Getting people to start talking about your film IS marketing. Posters, concept, logline, et al is marketing. After you've taken the money from people who just watched your pile of poop, you can keep aiming for those who haven't heard the bad reviews and there will be plenty -- ONLY if you put the time in to market it.

No one here intentionally creates poop to sell. Of course you want to test screen, by doing so you'll have better tools to market with. The point is (again) marketing is your only path to $$$, more important than the actual film.

As for the ex-ad cynic comment, I'm not an ad person, nor have I ever sold advertising, in fact, most forms of advertising is wrong for indie films. I am, however, someone who is a bit savvy in marketing media-related items (including early versions of my feature film).

Word of mouth means what people say after they've seen it. Pre-release buzz is something different -- and it won't carry you far beyond initial release. When a movie falls off after initial release, it's not because the marketing failed, it's because the movie wasn't good.

And loglines and concepts are not marketing, they are STORY; they are your story boiled down to its essential level. There's a big difference in most people's minds between the creative process and strategic thinking. There are obviously strategic thinkers in entertainment, just as there are bean counters, but those aren't usually the people that find imaginative ways to put lightning in a bottle vis a vis 12 point courier. If you're going to say story is marketing then by that measure everything is marketing and that's not much to argue about.

I'm not saying marketing doesn't matter, of course it does, but you present it as a binary, and I'm calling BS on that -- eventually you have show some substance in your work, and the road will be a lot easier if you do it sooner rather than later.
 
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.
I guess I misunderstood. When you said quite a few people you know
personally, in your circle, have had great success I thought you meant
people you knew personally - not just people you have spoken to.

I’ve seen terrible movies with poor acting, sound, photography find an
audience and make money. And I have seen wonderful movies in
festivals that didn’t find an audience and didn’t make any money at all.
I am not as convinced as you that making a great movie is all it takes
to find an audience and make money. Marketing may come into play.
Word of mouth (what people say after they have seen the movie) will
sink a bad movie, but good marketing might get people to watch a bad
movie. And I tend to believe a great movie will not find an audience
if it is poorly marketed. That leads me to believe that marketing is
important to the success (making money) of a movie - perhaps even
more important than making a movie with great acting, story and
production value.

So let me ask you, Kholi; have you never come across an
independent movie that is very good and was not a success? Among
your circle or people you have spoken to or associated with, are
there no very good movies that didn’t find an audience at all? If
so, why do you think those films did not reach a paying audience?
 
I guess I misunderstood. When you said quite a few people you know
personally, in your circle, have had great success I thought you meant
people you knew personally - not just people you have spoken to.

Right. That's probably the wrong way to say it in regards to the online distro thing. Those people are more peripheral. The right thing to say is I am aware of and have talked to a number of (10 or more) people, that I have kept in communication with and had conversations with, that have done the online distribution thing with success ranging from some to great.

As far as distribution in the traditional sense, I do know people who have become friends in a lot of different places that've had successful distribution within the last two years. At least two of them I worked on personally in different capacities, some of them very close friends have worked on or DP'd, produced, etc. Those people I'd consider a circle.

So my bad, wrong term.

I'd be shooting for traditional distro models before online, personally, but both are viable options.

I’ve seen terrible movies with poor acting, sound, photography find an
audience and make money. And I have seen wonderful movies in
festivals that didn’t find an audience and didn’t make any money at all.
I am not as convinced as you that making a great movie is all it takes
to find an audience and make money. Marketing may come into play.
Word of mouth (what people say after they have seen the movie) will
sink a bad movie, but good marketing might get people to watch a bad
movie. And I tend to believe a great movie will not find an audience
if it is poorly marketed. That leads me to believe that marketing is
important to the success (making money) of a movie - perhaps even
more important than making a movie with great acting, story and
production value.

I'm not saying marketing isn't important, but I am saying that the product is just as important as marketing.

So let me ask you, Kholi; have you never come across an
independent movie that is very good and was not a success? Among
your circle or people you have spoken to or associated with, are
there no very good movies that didn’t find an audience at all? If
so, why do you think those films did not reach a paying audience?

I haven't. To be dead honest, I seriously have not come across any "very good" no named low-to-no budget features that are very good and have not had success.

In my peripheral, nearly everyone I know who's done a feature has found moderate to serious success and are going into their next project, some beginning this year, some next.

Not all of them were very good. In fact, most aren't good at all, decent at best? But, nearly all of them have a pretty decent look, large cast, and are targeted very specifically at a paying demographic.

The most monetarily successful ones have been Christian Films, the second Sci-FI with lots of VFX, the third Creature Feature/Monster Horror. I've even got a friend who's got a sizable advance for all rights waiting for her for a slasher gore feature she just finished out of her effects company, if she can get the rest of it in order in time. And, me personally, I didn't think that gore stuff still moved but I guess it does.

It probably goes without saying that very very very very few of them (two at most) are straight-up comedies or dramas. Off the top of my head I know like two people who are doing that (non christian films) and have secured respectable distro through small channels that are focusing on VOD.

They also looked pretty good, and are now one of them's kickstarted their way into 50K from those people that liked his stuff and is working on his next feature. It's more genre oriented, which is pretty cool.

ANyway, that's why I'm more optimistic, because--like I said, in my peripheral--I'm seeing more success than not. The only caveat is that these people didn't pop up thursday and sell a movie on Saturday, they've been at it much longer than I have.

In the end, I just don't see enough no-budget, no-named indies that are worth paying ten dollars for in a broad sense, and then these features lack a very strong target audience. You could get away with murder if you create a feature aimed at a demo that'll pay for anything that's oriented in what they like.

And, I also know that no one sets out to make something that looks bad or sub-par. The reality is that not all filmmakers are created equal, and not everyone has the ability to go to that level. I think everyone can learn how to do it, though... it just takes a long time and a few teammates.
 
Last edited:
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.)


I can certainly understand the logic here, but I prefer to subscribe to the notion that my audience's intelligence should be respected. I think we just had a genre thread, recently, regarding this same topic. I also believe that, yes, 'there's a sucker born every minute'...doesn't mean that the best mode of operation is to exploit this notion nor does it mean if I did, that I'd have repeat customers. Like another old adage, 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'. JMO, but to each his own. :)
 
Back
Top