> VOD Indie Film Distribution Exploration

[rayw]

Alright, with grrrrreat reluctance I'm beginning a new thread with my investigation notes about video-on-demand.
I wanted to just attach it to the other thread as a minor tangent, but this just keeps getting hairier and hairier demanding it's own thread. Sorry

Although this first post is a C&P regurgitation of the last info from another thread subsequent posts will highlight boiled down items of interest.
(IOW, there's a big difference between writing copy to fill collumn inches and writing to slam home crude education - which is my preferred approach: "Ten words or less. What?!"

Subsequent posts will examine individual articles begining with that FilmThreat Going Bionic series.

Have fun.

* * * * * * * * *

Another interesting VOD article:
Dated - Fall 2009 http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/issues/fall2009/industry-beat.php

By all accounts, the most successful VOD films fall into one of a few categories, horror-thrillers (Dark Mirror, Magnolia's Surveillance or The Mutant Chronicles), sexy stuff (like some of IFC's racy French fare) or star-studded comedies (IFC's I Hate Valentine's Day, starring the leads from My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

"The films working on cable VOD are going to be the films that people want to watch with other people, things that are provocative, either from a violence or stylish sense, or a titillating standpoint,"

It appears that if you can skip the dubious expense of a questionable theatrical release, the title and description are intriguing enough, that VOD only distribution may be fairly viable.

Surprisingly some filmmakers are ending up in better fiscal shape by bypassing the theatrical route. Joe Swanberg says the VOD performance for his latest film, Alexander the Last, was similar to his previous Hannah Takes the Stairs. Both were released on IFC with grosses around $250,000. But Alexander may turn out to be significantly more profitable because the higher expenses associated with Hannah's theatrical release ate up all of its VOD proceeds.



And another "more" current article:
Dated - Jun 29, 2010 http://www.filmthreat.com/features/22975/

Finding a way to get your film noticed can be as hard, or harder, than finding the money to make your film in the first place. Of course having certain elements like a notable cast and a “bionic” genre (i.e. action, sci-fi and thriller) will certainly help. But, you should have a clear idea about who your audience is and how you can exploit your product to them through the correct V.O.D. platform.

2) People under the age of 25 buy most of the content sold to cell phones.

Since most contracts with V.O.D. suppliers are non-exclusive, your distributor should exploit your film to multiple suppliers. Let me just clarify that point: Your contract with your distributor is always exclusive, but their contract with V.O.D. suppliers is usually non-exclusive. This means you can have your film available to multiple V.O.D. suppliers if it makes sense to do so.

Cool. There's a series: http://www.filmthreat.com/page/7/?s="going+bionic"



Another informative "definitions of VOD" article:
Dated - Aug 25, 2011 http://www.sellingyourfilm.com/blog/tag/film-distribution-contracts/


Good Lord.
The amount of data to learn on this subject is... deep enough to drown in.
Looks like a chock-load of undated FREE RESOURCES in that first left column block: http://www.filmspecific.com/public/main.cfm


I think this is enough to keep me busy for a week.
(BTW, did I ever tell you guys that the reason I got interested in filmmaking is because I DON'T like reading anymore, especially when a book takes six or more hours to convey what a film can do in under two hours? And what am I doing a sh!t load of now? Yuk yuk yuk. Life is funny).

 

[Kholi]

I've seen both Primer and Another Earth and liked them both. They were very pretty films. Acting was great. To the non-filmmaker not worried about production value, they would look like any other movie. So after they won Sundance, why didn't anybody bother marketing them properly? What kind of movie is worth making, if you want a decent return on it? Comedy and Horror and VFX driven films? Anything else?

Well, how would you market a very sophisticated Time Travel feature film with no names or faces in it, or actual visual "time traveling?" The only marketing it had was Sundance winner, unfortunately that was also at a time when the net wasn't so prominent for streaming etc. I've seen this movie in excess, full watch, of 18 times at least and I guarantee it is not for the mass public. Most of my filmmaker friends don't even like it.

And, how do you market a less sophisticated sci-fi about Another Earth appearing in the sky, but nobody goes to it or comes from it? The biggest moments seemed to already be in the trailer (I haven't seen it yet) and the rest is a drama about getting over things. No faces, no real spectacle.

The reality of it is that the audience does care about production value when they're paying to see something. It's kinda sad that filmmakers believe that they don't, or they can't see it or they can't tell. Of course they can: even television's beginning to look like cinema these days. When you're inundated with excellent quality you're going to notice when "something's not right".

They care, maybe they don't mind if you can hook them fast enough, but of course they care when their money is on the line.

What's worth making? I think whatever you feel you like and you can get behind almost one-hundred percent is the movie worth making. If you're talking about making money, it's even less about the movie that's worth making and the budget that can get you to the things that make money. If that makes sense?

I'm not going to shoot a feature above 100K unless it's a pretty damned good script AND it's littered with VFX/SFX, OR it's got faces/names in it. And even then, that's not a sure bet at all.

Keep your budget nano until you can afford to do the things Ray's discovering, which means major marketing.

 

[trueindie]

Well, how would you market a very sophisticated Time Travel feature film with no names or faces in it, or actual visual "time traveling?" The only marketing it had was Sundance winner, unfortunately that was also at a time when the net wasn't so prominent for streaming etc. I've seen this movie in excess, full watch, of 18 times at least and I guarantee it is not for the mass public. Most of my filmmaker friends don't even like it.

And, how do you market a less sophisticated sci-fi about Another Earth appearing in the sky, but nobody goes to it or comes from it? The biggest moments seemed to already be in the trailer (I haven't seen it yet) and the rest is a drama about getting over things. No faces, no real spectacle.

I'm not sure how I'd market it, but I could throw your argument back at you. How would you market a horror film with no name actors where you don't see anybody die and you don't even see the ghost or in this case the witch? Somebody just has to get behind the project I guess, and spend the money advertising it and creating a story and buzz around it. That would be one answer. How do I get someone interested? I don't know.

The reality of it is that the audience does care about production value when they're paying to see something. It's kinda sad that filmmakers believe that they don't, or they can't see it or they can't tell. Of course they can: even television's beginning to look like cinema these days. When you're inundated with excellent quality you're going to notice when "something's not right".

I didn't use to believe in production value before, but I definitely do now. I am completely on your page, believe me. I believe in it completely. But the production value for a sci fi would mean great vfx. For a social drama, the production value or look and feel of Primer would suffice, don't you think? The reason I say this, is recently an old college buddy of mine came to town and I was just showing him some stuff I shot. It wasn't anything particularly special, but he couldn't believe I shot it. He told me that the first thing that went through his head was that a 'real' filmmaker shot it and I was putting it together. This guy is not a filmmaker. He works for the government. It made me think that for non vfx necessary stories, a general 'film look' might suffice, to get the audience to think that it was a 'real' film. Maybe I'm wrong, but we might want to spend time with people who are not filmmakers also.

What's worth making? I think whatever you feel you like and you can get behind almost one-hundred percent is the movie worth making. If you're talking about making money, it's even less about the movie that's worth making and the budget that can get you to the things that make money. If that makes sense?

I'm not going to shoot a feature above 100K unless it's a pretty damned good script AND it's littered with VFX/SFX, OR it's got faces/names in it. And even then, that's not a sure bet at all.

Keep your budget nano until you can afford to do the things Ray's discovering, which means major marketing.

I don't want to sound like I'm in this for money, cause I'm not. I definitely don't see any in the near future. But I'm not an absolutist of any sort. If somebody comes over to me and says, "I'll pay you such and such, will you direct this story for me?" I'd do it in a heartbeat, whether I believed in the story or not. Some things are just jobs. I've sold industrial material, I had no earthly interest in for money. Why would I not make a film for money? I've cleaned toilets for money. Why would I not make a film I'm not interested in, for money? I don't think there's anything wrong with it. If it's not the film you want to make, if it's not your opus, then it's just a job, and that's okay.

Now the reason I mention this is the following. I do have stories that I want to tell that I like. I do have films I want to make that are my type of story. But I don't think that I can make that film today. I don't have the necessary resources. So today, at this moment the advice of make "whatever you feel you like and you can get behind almost one-hundred percent" does not really work for me. Cause I don't have the resources to make that movie. The way I'm approaching it is this.

1. I am the employer / investor
2. I have a $15 to $25K budget including marketing.
3. I hire a writer / director / post team (myself)
4. Task is to make something / anything that will generate a return greater than $25K
5. Story / Distribution channel (unspecified / whatever works for the chosen genre)

That's my basic approach right now. If somebody came to me with that job offer, I'd take it. So why wouldn't I take it from myself? My ideal movie takes place with tanks in the snow. I can't make that today. So above is my basic approach. I have divorced myself from the idea that I have to be completely in love with the film I make. I was never completely in love with any job I've ever had. I'm certainly not in love with freelancing for people who don't want to pay me what I think they should. In fact I feel used. I feel like I shouldn't be doing it. But I do it. So I think, for me, its okay if I can't be a 100% behind the first couple of decent films I make.

My challenge is to determine the answers to tasks 4 and 5 first, and then approach Task 3, given that 1 and 2 remains true. I just don't want to be sentimental about it. Is that so wrong? I just think that I'm being practical, given my situation.

Edit: BTW, Another Earth is a very sweet film. It's science fiction super lite. The other earth is in the backdrop for the story, but it's not the story. Any other backdrop would have worked for the story.

 

[Kholi]

I'm not sure how I'd market it, but I could throw your argument back at you. How would you market a horror film with no name actors where you don't see anybody die and you don't even see the ghost or in this case the witch? Somebody just has to get behind the project I guess, and spend the money advertising it and creating a story and buzz around it. That would be one answer. How do I get someone interested? I don't know.

Very easily. You Market the experience the same way you market the experience of a roller coaster ride. The most monetarily successful movies always offer an experience that overshadows the story. If you can craft an experience then you're one step closer.

I'd never shoot a feature that didn't show "the monster" unless I knew how to deliver a tense experience.

I didn't use to believe in production value before, but I definitely do now. I am completely on your page, believe me. I believe in it completely. But the production value for a sci fi would mean great vfx. For a social drama, the production value or look and feel of Primer would suffice, don't you think?

Definitely, for a drama. That also means you aren't selling it, though. Nobody wants to buy indie dramas without recognizable talent.

The reason I say this, is recently an old college buddy of mine came to town and I was just showing him some stuff I shot. It wasn't anything particularly special, but he couldn't believe I shot it. He told me that the first thing that went through his head was that a 'real' filmmaker shot it and I was putting it together. This guy is not a filmmaker. He works for the government. It made me think that for non vfx necessary stories, a general 'film look' might suffice, to get the audience to think that it was a 'real' film. Maybe I'm wrong, but we might want to spend time with people who are not filmmakers also.

ASk him to pay 10.00 for it, or a stranger.


I get what you're asking, and I understand the plight. No matter what you do you're gambling, though. These are all just the stronger bets that you have the decision to play or not. EVen multi-million dollar movies with major marketing tank.

The reality of it is that we're on such a low level the only things that you can consider are the basic food groups, you know? Unless you know someone, you aren't getting a name face. So scratch that off the list.

You want money, so you aren't doing a festival darling; scratch that off the list. (No Drama or straight comedy)

Now you've got Hyper-Niche or Genre Spectacle left. Can you do either on 25K? Absolutely. Horror is pretty much the easiest thing you can do on no budget and it never gets old. Sci-Fi's a little harder because you've got to know some creature creators or your way around a post VFX suite. You still have action (fights and explosions, guns) and Supernatural (ghosts, etc) left.

Aside from telling you that, I don't think anyone can tell you exactly what to go and create, that's just gonna be on you.

I'm still deciding whether to do a Found Footage/Handycam feature next or a Supernatural Thriller. It's not an easy decision.

 

[rayw]

How would you market a horror film with no name actors where you don't see anybody die and you don't even see the ghost or in this case the witch? Somebody just has to get behind the project I guess, and spend the money advertising it and creating a story and buzz around it. That would be one answer. How do I get someone interested? I don't know.

The system I'm slowly aggregating together has a lot to do with what I said to DeJager yesterday.
"If you wanna build a custom car to drive around town for yourself and friends that's one thing.
But if you wanna build cars to sell across the nation and world you gotta know a helluva lot more than just how to build the cars."

The world in most every respect keeps changing.
What worked for independent filmmakers from the 70s and 80s (can you believe that was... 30, 40 years ago?) is different from what worked when Blair Witch came out in 1999, 13 years ago, and what worked then wouldn't work since the collapse of the financial markets in 2009 and the subsequent effect on employment (AKA unemployment) and the quantitative availability of discretionary spending.

Things change.
A lot.

Independent filmmakers can no longer just write, cast, film, and edit a film (building a car, essentially) while EXPECTING SOMMME random distributor to pick up their product.
You can't even get away with some mickey mouse internet seeding of video leaks and savvy chit chat.
(I loathhhhhe the word "savvy". It sounds so high school pretentious).

Increasingly, I think with (and especially without) a distributor filmmakers need to know how to make the film (car), market the film (car), and distribute the film (car) all by ourselves without anyone holding our hands.

The whole process has changed - if you want to be an optimally effective filmmaker.

You can't really start out with your own idea that you fabricated in a vacuum all by yourself or with even a tight knit group.
I believe the most effective approach is to become an active (not token) member of multiple discussion boards and blogs intensely related to a project you are INTERESTED in developing even before you have a screenplay fleshed out and written up.

Yeah, I know.
It's insane.
The world changes, and this is just what I'm developing, can't say I've tried a bit of it, it may look better on web paper than in actual practice, but does make for a reasonable argument.

1 - Join multiple groups, integrate yourself, ping ideas off subject peers,
2 - Ally yourself with the top or second tier dog/power people of each group,
3 - Develop an idea of how the basic premise you have in mind could be integrated with the collective interests of subject peers (cherry pick/buffet style, of course),
4 - Only then begin crafting your screenplay,
5 - Begin seeding that you are in the development process of your film project,
6 - Set up all the social media sites your project requires: web page - linked to - facebook & twitter accounts
7 - Continue to cultivate relationships within and maybe among the groups as you direct interest to the project's sites.
8 - Get your film project shot and chopped ASAP before people get bored with it,
9 - Leak and promote information about any trivial advance, trial & tribulation the project has,
10 - Unabashedly "close the sale" on asking others to promote your film,
11 - Consider ONLY festivals immediately relevant to the market niche the film serves,
12 - Stick your film in front of every podunk local paper's entertainment editor where the festivals are going on (even if you're accepted or not!)
13 - Shortly thereafter, load it up on your own DIY distribution platform such as Amazon or whatever (I haven't gotten that far yet)
14 - Pay for internet advertising at all of your group sites and blogs you've been attending all along.

That's the rough plan, subject to plenty of revisions.
Revisions would include some estimation of about how many film viewings would I reasonably expect to sell and budget accordingly before writing (or abandoning) the project.

Don't wait until after you have a film in the proverbial can - AND THEN - start piddling in your pants "What shall I do?! What shall I do?!"

Otherwise, you'd've built a spec film with no market other than Amazon and a shingle.
God forbid you go to NetF#ckMeOverFlix. The "distributor" of last resort.

I do have stories that I want to tell that I like. I do have films I want to make that are my type of story. But I don't think that I can make that film today. I don't have the necessary resources. So today, at this moment the advice of make "whatever you feel you like and you can get behind almost one-hundred percent" does not really work for me. Cause I don't have the resources to make that movie.

I think this is a very sound and sane way to approach this, and exactly how I'm also approaching the process.
I got dozens of story ideas, some could be shot as an indie for under ten thousand easy or by a studio for five million.
And I've got some that there's no way in Hades they could even remotely be done on even a giant indie budget because they are Michael Bay/Ron Howard epic SFX bonanza-fests.

Guess what I'm gonna start out with and which stories I'll keep in reserve?
Duuuuuuhhhh!!!

The way I'm approaching it is this.

1. I am the employer / investor
2. I have a $15 to $25K budget including marketing.
3. I hire a writer / director / post team (myself)
4. Task is to make something / anything that will generate a return greater than $25K
5. Story / Distribution channel (unspecified / whatever works for the chosen genre)

Looks good to me.
I don't see how a sensible person would do it otherwise.

My ideal movie takes place with tanks in the snow. I can't make that today. So above is my basic approach. I have divorced myself from the idea that I have to be completely in love with the film I make.

My challenge is to determine the answers to tasks 4 and 5 first, and then approach Task 3, given that 1 and 2 remains true. I just don't want to be sentimental about it. Is that so wrong? I just think that I'm being practical, given my situation.

Works for me.
Two thumbs up!

GL, BOL, & GB!

Unless you know someone, you aren't getting a name face. So scratch that off the list.

You want money, so you aren't doing a festival darling; scratch that off the list. (No Drama or straight comedy)

Now you've got Hyper-Niche or Genre Spectacle left. Can you do either on 25K? Absolutely. Horror is pretty much the easiest thing you can do on no budget and it never gets old. Sci-Fi's a little harder because you've got to know some creature creators or your way around a post VFX suite. You still have action (fights and explosions, guns) and Supernatural (ghosts, etc) left.

This is the exact kind of business minded razor anyone who wants to make a return on their creative investment needs to utilize.
Excellent.

It irritates me to no living end when anyone cops an ignorant attitude that business and art are somehow mutually exclusive.
Grrrr.
They are not.
Think Michelangelo carved the Pieta for credit? Out of Love for the Church that COMMISSIONED it?

Wise up.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

I believe the most effective approach is to become an active (not token) member of multiple discussion boards and blogs intensely related to a project you are INTERESTED in developing even before you have a screenplay fleshed out and written up.

Yeah, I know.
It's insane.

I disagree completely - about it being insane, that is. I think you've hit the nail on the head, and your step by step approach is likely not too far off from what successful micro-budget filmmakers will have to do going forward to be successful.

 

[rayw]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, and your step by step approach is likely not too far off from what successful micro-budget filmmakers will have to do going forward to be successful.

Thank you. Sincerely.
It looks like a God awful PITA to me.

I can't help but think about the evolution of the video game development industry.
Once upon a time one or two guys could sit around their computer and write the code over the course of a few months to make the very first rudimentary games.
Now?
Pfft.
I understand the big games take hundreds of thousands of hours of creativity just to build the GD things, let alone market them.

I think the days of one or two man micro features is long gone.
It'd take at least four or five very dedicated people to manage what I've proposed here.
I got a family. I ain't got the time. I don't know how this would ever pan out for me.



EDIT: BTW, this model is only good for maybe the next five to eight years before everybody's doing it and the consumer catches onto this planned approach.

 

[Kholi]

I disagree completely - about it being insane, that is. I think you've hit the nail on the head, and your step by step approach is likely not too far off from what successful micro-budget filmmakers will have to do going forward to be successful.

Yes, indeed. If you aren't starting early on you're just setting yourself up for a marathon that you probably can't finish. Ease into it before you even get started.

I've got a hyper-niche thriller with an audience that doesn't get serviced at all, I contacted huge (MASSIVE) bloggers about it and every single one of them responded with readiness to help push it when the time comes.

They're aware, and I'll make them part of the process.

Ray's right: just making a movie doesn't cut it, if you want to monetize your efforts you aren't just making a movie, you're creating a full-fledged product that either you or someone else is gonna sell. Treat it like that.

 

[rayw]

Page 4: http://www.filmthreat.com/page/4/?s="going+bionic"

Posted on January 25, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/29912/
"The reason distributors are not listing sale prices of the films they’re acquiring in Park City, is because those prices are a fraction of what they used to be. Simply put, it’s hard to brag about a sale price that’s ten times less than what they used to be as early as three to five years ago. The good news is distributors are still buying independent films. The bad news, however, is that they are paying a lot less for them."


Posted on February 1, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/30482/
"My Idiot Brother – The Weinstein Company bought this Paul Rudd comedy for $7 million, plus a $15 million guaranteed spend on prints and advertising.

The Details – The Weinstein Company bought this marriage drama for $7.5 million, plus a $10 million guaranteed spend on prints and advertising budget.

Like Crazy – Paramount bought this year’s Sundance Grand Jury Prize for Drama winner for $4 million plus a $6 million guaranteed spend on prints and advertising.

Such a move is a far cry from recent years, as it used to be enough just to get a theatrical release on any level. However, today’s distribution deals for major independent films are far more layered, as they combine theatrical releases in multiple countries, VOD sales, and healthy viral campaigns. Of course all of these sales avenues are needed in order for the distributors to justify spending far more money marketing the films than the films cost to make."


Posted on February 8, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/30638/
"One thing to keep in mind before I lay out several facts and figures about sports films is that a theatrically released film must make 2.5-3.0 times its budget, in order to break even.

In short, sports themed films generally make less money than most other genres. This is the case because:
a) Not everyone is a sports fan.
b) Not everyone is a fan of the sport the film is about.
c) The main sports in America are not popular worldwide.

Film Festivals May Not Be The Right Launch Pad
If you’re making a sports related film, you may want to think twice about taking the film festival route to find distribution. There are festival darlings like Bend It Like Beckham (2002) and the documentaries Hoop Dreams (1994) and Murderball (2005), but film festival programmers normally shy away from programming sports films."


Posted on February 15, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/30640/
"Position The Film Early So Film Buyers Can Track It
When my company signed [this film] year ago at the 2010 Berlin Film Festival, we knew it was still one year away from being completed. However, we contacted sever key film buyers to alert them of our acquisition, and to have them put it on their 2011 calendar of films to keep an eye on. It also didn’t hurt that our acquisition of [this film] got some ink in Screen International during the EFM and Berlin Film Festival last year, which created a nice buzz for the film with worldwide buyers who were in Berlin at the time."
Although I believe this particular film may have certain large audience aspects to it the underlying principles to the paragraph the author states are what is most relevant.
Primarily - KNOW WHEN your film is going to be completed and start chumming the headzup to relevant parties well in advance rather than just springing it on them when nearly completed.
Secondarily - Chum the waters well in advance of the premier.

"Have An Easy To Navigate, Ass-Kicking Website
[This film] has a great website, www.[this film].com It’s detailed, dynamic, and it allows visitors to track the progress of the film and learn the specifics on what it took to put together. The website also highlights a cool trailer for the film, and it’s offered in both German and English.

Although my company had zero to do with building the website, (the filmmakers did it themselves), it has certainly become a healthy sales tool for us because we can guide our buyers to it, knowing that they’ll admire its professionalism.

Truth be told, if a website for a film we’re representing sucks, we won’t even mention it to our buyers. A bad website can only reduce the value of your film. This is because film buyers will assume the quality of the film is no better than the quality of the website. Thus, Just remember while your film’s website is not a key reason for it’s value to be higher or lower, it certainly is a factor that can do you harm if it’s not well done.

... a sub-par trailer will kill your sales beyond belief.

Your Screening Should Occur Early On In The Market
Our screening for [this film] was on the first evening of the EFM, which positively affected our attendance. In fact, I was quite pleased with the healthy turnout we enjoyed at our screening. But, I’m well aware that our attendance would have suffered mightily if our screening had occurred beyond the fifth day of the ten-day market."
As a reminder, this article is specifically speaking about a film MARKET, not a film FESTIVAL.
However, I suspect it's much the same at festivals, as well. People just get exhausted after several straight days of pretty much anything, including the things they love.


Posted on March 1, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/32503/
"These days, distributors are spending less in keeping the Oscar winners iN theaters, and more on getting them onto DVD as soon as possible. This way distributors can capitalize on the short-lived, but powerful heat that winning an Oscar generates with consumers.

Call it a troubled economy, a temporary trend, or merely just the way audiences prefer to watch their entertainment, but it looks as if a theatrical release has gone from being “the end-all-be-all,” to becoming “step one,” of a multi-platform rollout that is timed to reach its consumers effectively."

Posted on April 5, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/34055/
Remember, this article is in reference to TV products rather than strictly "films".
"Branded Entertainment Summit
Thanks to TiVo and related DVR’s, fewer and fewer viewers have to watch commercials. Most people just record whichever shows they want to watch, and then forward through the commercials when they view the program. That’s where “branded entertainment” comes in. Now advertisers want to be in the actual show/film, as opposed to being an advertiser around it. Thus, the Branded Entertainment Summit explores a myriad of opportunities on how filmmakers can exploit the new age of branded entertainment for their products."
L!
M!
A!
O!
I'm pretty sure this is EXACTLY what I'm also investigating. Too funny.

Read the three sections under the following headline:
Trends Emerging From MIPTV 2011
- Contract Term Lengths Are Getting Shorter
- Territory Prices and Back End Payments Are Creeping Back Up
- The European Content Log Jam May Be Clearing


Posted on April 7, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/33293/
A somewhat useful article regarding indie film financing.

Jeff Steele, owner of Film Closings (FC)
"- If you’re not using presales, gap, etc., then I would keep the budget under $1m.
- ... that $1m budget does not include P&A. That would have to be in addition to.
- classic distribution models are fine for mainstream indies (over $5m), but alternative models for less.
- crowdfunding works for lower budget (under $1m, or under $500k).
- you can see an example of a pro finance plan at: http://@FilmClosings.com/finance-plan/
- Filmmakers HAVE to invest in themselves. Be prepared to spend $10k-$25k out-of-pocket to get each project made.
- Attachments, sales estimates, and finance plan are the most valuable elements for investors.
- [Order of pursuit: Secure] TALENT, THEN FINANCING, THEN DISTRIBUTION.
- Script is most important to foreign buyers, followed by producer-with-track-records, then actors/directors.
- Talent is very important, but it’s lipstick on a pig if you have a bad script.
- Action (but with a fresh take)... genre would is suggest[ed] to a first time feature writer/director from a financing standpoint
- Track-record is everything. That’s your filmmaking #FICO score. Especially for producers re: production value.
- VFX and locations are the budget killers. Keep them few if you can."

Sean Elwood, Director of Special Projects at Creative Capital (CC)
"- You should know about the Foundation Center, source for information grants. Addressee real/online. http://foundationcenter.org
- Web presence includes a website (websites?), social networks, wikipedia entries, online sales sites. all are needed
- Crowdfunding is based on your access to a community/network of supporters that I think one has to build for one’s self
- to read more, please visit our website- creative-capital.org"

Mark Bell, Host of FilmThreat
"- Funders come from many places. Starts with friends maybe, but success lies in expansion
- Private site crowdfunding seems less reputable 2 take chance on. Kickstarter least gives illusion of accountability
- Feels like name crowdfund sites offer a reputation that is easier to take a risk on than a private site"

Audience
"- from the research I’ve gotten [crowd sourcing funds come] 20% fam and friends 80% strangers or friends of friends
- 1/2 of my current [crowd sourcing] funders are actors I have never worked with nor meet.
- Attaching a star CAN help get you money, but doesn’t guarantee anything, if investors don’t like the script
- Or if the star is genre-pegged and typecast — then it helps nuttin’.
- re: brands & cash – co-brand w them on your site/film then have them market film to their network
- ideal money 25% #crowdfunding 15% grants 10% traditional fundraising 50% investment"


Posted on April 12, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/34379/
A somewhat useful article regarding the impact of the MPAA rating of your film, should it even require any.



Alright, that's it for page four.
I'm already sick of reading.
I'll hit page five "later".

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

My quick 2 cents . . .

I'm not so sure I agree with the comment about letting buyers know ahead of time you've a film coming out on a specific date if you're still in production.

We already see plenty of crap rushed in post to make a submission deadline.

As for crowdfunding, I'm afraid its becoming akin to a pot at the end of a rainbow.

The branding within a film thing is interesting.

 

[fliclink]

Check out fliclink.com - we are in pre Beta and it's a great time to submit your film

Hey guys,

Was reading this thread and thought I'd mention that we are a great alternative to typical distribution channels. And we are currently in pre Beta which means we are accepting film submissions for free.

We're looking for high quality films, between 60 and 120 minutes. If you're interested, check out our page - all the info is there.

Hope it helps!

www.fliclink.com

Jeff

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Hey guys,

Was reading this thread and thought I'd mention that we are a great alternative to typical distribution channels. And we are currently in pre Beta which means we are accepting film submissions for free.

We're looking for high quality films, between 60 and 120 minutes. If you're interested, check out our page - all the info is there.

Hope it helps!

www.fliclink.com

Jeff

Let me get this straight . . . you eventually plan to charge us to submit films for distribution consideration?

 

[fliclink]

Yes, much like the platform filmbaby.com uses. Eventually, there will be sufficient traffic to the site and a significant enough user base to make it well worth it to submit a film for $40. If you think about it, you submit your films to festivals often charging a significant amount more than this for their application fees.

The films on our site will be highly curated, and there is a cost to that. There is also a cost to digitizing the films and making sure each film has a trailer or clip in order to properly promote it on the site. We will not be charging for submissions until there is sufficient benefit for the filmmaker on our site. In the meantime, submissions will be free.

$40 is a very nominal fee, if it gives you the opportunity to post your movie on a platform that will offer a high rate of return on your film, is it not?

Jeff

 

[rayw]

Hi, Jeff

Since this is more of a research oriented thread will you please restrict product & service promotion along with the civil discussion of it to the appropriate thread?

Thank you.


Ray

Of course, Ray, thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[fliclink]

Of course, Ray, thank you.

 

[rayw]

Alright, time for page five...
(BTW, the author is still writing for this series, so every Tuesday he pops out another gem which makes these all roll back one headline per week. IOW, after a few weeks these links to each page of links are about useless. Pay attention to the dates I'm including, highlighted in blue).

Some basic distribution terms to be familiar with (and would be darn lucky to be faced with):
Posted on April 19, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/34582/
Negative Pickup Deal
Pre-Sales
90/10 Distribution Deal
Firm Term Distribution Deals
Theater “Nut”
Legs
Cross Collateralization <-- Pure evil in this!

Frankly, these all have everything to do with theatrical distribution and zero to do with VOD, but... whatever.
It ain't gonna hurt you to learn 'em.


For those rare creatures that do docs:
Posted on May 10, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/35145/
Short/Sweet: Don't do docs, and if you must - watch your budget 'cause there ain't no money in them, sweetheart! (Shocking!!! )


Brief recap of the past year's posts:
Posted on May 17, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/35699/


A sensible list of building a successful filmmaking producer partnership followed by one on writing partnerships:
Posted on June 21, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/37034/
Posted on June 28, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/37324/

This series seems to be running out of true "indie film distribution" info, but I'll stick with it until I've depleted it all and move onto other VOD distribution resources.
But I have noticed.
Just letting you know that I know!


FINALLY!!!
Posted on July 12, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/37950/
"The August Holidays
Several key players in Europe take “holiday” for most, or all of August and even into September, triggering most key film industry executives in the USA to also take vacation in August. Therefore, even though the film industry doesn’t shut down in August, it certainly slows itself to a crawl.

The Thanksgiving Blues
Thanksgiving week is when all “pending” deals... die a sorry death. In fact, the last feasible time to close a deal occurs on Monday or Tuesday of Thanksgiving week. After then, the entire deal-making portion of the film industry goes into hibernation until after the new-year.

The New Year Holdback
While the New Year rings in new opportunities to get companies interested in your project, don’t think you can start firing calls and e-mails off to studios, distributors, agents and production companies right after the New Year, because it usually takes them one to two weeks to be ready to take on new pitches. Regarding the upcoming year, not much new is getting done on Monday, January 2, 2012. While some executives and companies may be ready to hit the ground running by Monday, January 9th, most entertainment entities won’t be ready to charge into new projects until Monday, January 16, 2012.

The thing to understand about first-time film investors (which is usually the case with independent films) is that they are often times more interested in being seen as a potential investor, rather than actually becoming an investor.

- One factor that may help you move [investor] negotiations along is the length of time your actors are committed to your project for.
- The other move you can make is to ask the investor if there are any hurdles that need to be cleared, if any, before they invest. The idea here is to find out exactly why they are hesitating.
- The key is to spend time on those investors who seem the most credible and interested in your film."


Posted on July 19, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/38439/
"the theatrical and DVD grosses of most films fall within a projected range that’s devised before the film gets funded. This earnings projection is based on the performance of previously released films in the same genre, actor quality and budget. Therefore, no matter how much a financial entity loves your project, they may pull the plug, simply because the numbers don’t make sense."


Posted on July 26, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/38824/
"While you may feel your project deserves to be a feature, what it deserves more is to get made. Thus, consider changing your feature into a product more suitable for TV or cable. The budget will be lower and the “stars” may be fading a bit, but actually getting a project made will advance your career at much faster clip than being the proud owner of an unsellable indie film.

Think Digital
You could also morph your masterpiece into series of webisodes to be aired on-line. While this move is more to grow a loyal fan base for your work and less to make money immediately, locating a loyal audience can be monetized if the number of followers gets big enough. Simply put, land 50,000 views and you’ll get a phone call or e-mail returned. At 100,000 views you’ll get a meeting, and if you cross 1,000,000 views for your work on-line, you will most likely get a deal."

1,459​

That's all folks for me tonight!
Where I left off: http://www.filmthreat.com/page/2/?s="going+bionic"

 

[rayw]

Alrighty, page 5 : http://www.filmthreat.com/page/2/?s="going+bionic"


More filmmaking info than VOD info:
Posted on August 2, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/38841/
"A pay-or-play deal means once an actor agrees to be in your film, you owe them their full acting fee, whether or not the film actually gets made. Thus, if your financing falls apart minutes before your cameras start lensing, the actor(s) with the pay or play is owed their full fee. That’s right, their full fee.

“B” List Actors Do Not Deserve Pay-Or-Play Deals
Remember, “B” list actors will never get you financing, unless they themselves write the investment check."


Recently there's been a decent discussion at IT about the (dubious) merits of using polls and stats for filmmaking.
There are two major camps of filmmaking, just like any art form: Fine art and Commercial art.
Since this is a VOD thread then I'm going to look at these things from a commercial film perspective.
When shooting guns to kill someone, you aim for center mass.

Center mass is indicated by statistics and math. Use 'em.
Posted on September 6, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/40110/
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/Sources/
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2011/OriginalScreenplay.php
"Remember, the information in this article isn’t just mumbo jumbo facts and figures, it reveals up-to-date trends on how American moviegoers are spending their money on filmed entertainment."
Again, this has been more about producing than distributing. Sigh.


Posted on September 27, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/40640/
"Avoid Companies Demanding Up Front Fees
It never ceases to amaze me how often filmmakers will get duped into paying up front fees for distribution. The truth of the matter is if your distributor/sales agent is demanding money up front, then they are not very compelled to earn money for your film...
Yes, it’s harsh to say that 200, non-star-driven indie films will make less than $10,000 each in international sales, but that statement is painfully true, especially in our tumbling world economy. So, while the distributors whom engage in such practices won’t “take the money and run,” they will “take the money and sit,”

Keep Contracts Less Than 8 Years For “No Advance” Deals
Since 85%-90% of a film’s international territory sales occur in the first 12 months, it’s ridiculous to sign your film away for longer than eight years, in situations where an advance was not paid to you.

Do Not Agree To Having Your Film Sold In A “Package”
Many distributors will sell 100 movies for $1,000 each, to a bottom-feeder buyer.

Urge Your Distributor To Refrain From Selling Your Film To Countries Where Copyright Law Isn’t Observed
Thus, filmmakers should urge their distributor to sell these territories last, after every other possible sale has been exhausted. Selling China and India too early will deplete the value of your film to more valuable markets like Germany and Japan...

Put A Firm Cap On “Administrative Expenses”
All reputable companies will clearly define how much their services will cost you. Don’t be fooled. Do not agree to a “rolling cap” or a situation where the distribution company/sales agent can tack on additional fees without your expressed written consent."


Posted on October 11, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/41428/
"There Is Not Enough New Product Being Sold
The most predominant sentiment being uttered by worldwide buyers and sellers is that there is a severe lack of new product out there. With both studio and independent production slowing down, sellers are schlepping the same films and TV series they were trying to sell last year. The main reasons for this are a) less independent product is being financed and produced and b) most of the product being made lacks the “star power” needed to force buyers to make an offer.

The Good News: Everyone is openly looking for good product, so if you have it, or are about to make it, it well definitely sell.

The Bad News: New product will only sell if it’s star on genre driven (preferably both). Others need not apply.

One exception to the “bad news” above is that certain genre’s like Sci-Fi and smart action/thrillers can sell without major stars attached, but remember, those sales are great deal smaller than sales that have “names” involved.

However, these days, 95% of independent product is unsellable [by sales agents and international distributors], so it makes no sense to handle 300 films, when only about 15 of them will have any sales.

... most online films for sale earn less than a few dollars per month."


I must've missed these li'l nuggets from earlier articles in the series.
Posted on October 18, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/42026/
"More Broadcast Outlets Equals A Lower Price Of Sale
In fact, these days it’s not uncommon for an independent film to be offered $10,000 or less for their broadcast rights.

Find A Home Interested In Renting Your Show A Room
These [broadcaster audience demographic] facts and figures are what you are going to need in order to present your show to sponsors (advertisers) for the purpose of having them commit to buying advertising on your show."


That's all the analytical reading I plan on doing today.
See ya later, gaters.

1,520​

 

[rayw]

Alrighty. Last page, which brings us up to the current Feb 21, post: http://www.filmthreat.com/?s="going+bionic"

Posted on November 15, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/43143/
"today we’re going to explore things you can do to “break-in” from comfort of your hometown. But first, let me offer you the following disclaimer:
There is no substitute for living in Los Angeles or New York.
Both cities offer more entertainment-based opportunities on one city block, than most other cities do in their entire city, country, or state.

However,... here are some things you can do to stay competitive while living outside of... Los Angeles and New York City."
And none of them are practical, nor relevant toward understanding VOD distribution, so...


Posted on December 13, 2011 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/43927/
"FIVE THINGS FOR YOU TO DO BEFORE NEXT TUESDAY!" (AKA Five "End of the Year" Things To Do).
1) Blah blah blah
2) Blah blah blah
3) Blah blah blah
4) Blah blah blah
"5) Pick Your Racehorse For 2012
Take a look at your current, or future projects, and choose the “one” that will launch your career the quickest.
Don’t just merely choose your favorite project, choose theone that gives you the best shot at firmly planting you on the Hollywood map.
Remember, your “chosen project” has to accomplish one of two things:
1) to make you tons of money or
2) to get you tons of publicity (both would be ideal)."



Posted on January 10, 2012 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/44987/
"Non-Exclusive Distribution Devalue Your Film
The first thing to remember, about all non-exclusive distribution deals, is that they devalue your film. Nothing says, “I don’t think my film is very good,” like offering it to every online distributor you can find. While adhering to this tactic will technically make it possible for more eyes to find your film online, those eyes won’t find your film to be very special if it’s readily available at every corner of the Internet.

Non-Exclusive Distribution Should Be Your Last Resort
Since executing non-exclusive distribution deals signal you’re raising the white flag on your project, these deals they should be your very last option.

Non-Exclusive Contracts May Ruin Your Festival Run
Just to be clear, any form of online distribution may damage your film’s ability to qualify to many film festivals.

Never Sign With Multiple Sales Companies
When dealing with a film sales company, never, under any circumstances, grant your film’s rights to more than one sales company (even if both companies agree to representing your film in a non-exclusive situation)."


Okey, doke!
Sadly, that's all we got here (which really was quite a fair bit, especially in the beginning) from this series relevant to VOD distribution.

Maybe this weekend or next week I'll start digging up some of the other site links I've already run across and begin following up on those.

Good luck & God Bless!

1,603​

 

[rayw]

Next VOD article to read: http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/10/vod-portal-mubi-gets-most-viewers-from-game-consoles/
Re. http://mubi.com/

Actually, I have several to review maybe this weekend:
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/ne...miere-digitally-via-sundance-artist-services/
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/08/focus-launches-vod-arm/
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/09/weinsteins-start-vod-label/


From that first linked article:
"Filmmaker: How do filmmakers on MUBI make money?
MUBI splits revenue 50/50 with rightsholders.

Filmmaker: From where do your visitors buy mostly? Game console? The web? Other?
Game Console.

Filmmaker: What advice would you give to filmmakers to help their films stand out on a video sharing site?
Choose your platform wisely, as films can get lost in the shuffle, and bring to the table your own ideas on how to get your films seen. The trend in media consumption is getting more and more about “all access, all the time,” and work needs to be done to get the word out on smaller, lesser known titles."
That reads a lot like MUBI primarily only hosts your film and provides billing service.
YOU are responsible for pimping your own product, much like a bricks and mortar theater hosts while the studio is responsible for promotion & advertising.
(In a subsequent Q&A not worth reposting MUBI provides a very thin promotion of a very select content by having an article about that film).

Okey doke. That was that, limited as it was.
What else I got...

This (practcally) useless VOD article... : http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/ne...miere-digitally-via-sundance-artist-services/
... lead to this almost useless VOD article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/m...-streaming-for-films.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
... which leads to here: http://www.newvideo.com/
... which don't do you no good because "The option is open to every film ever shown at the festival, or brought to a Sundance lab, or given a Sundance grant."

But that second article does identify some of the biggest VOD suppliers: Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, YouTube.

 

[rayw]

Coupla good articles:
1. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/08/focus-launches-vod-arm/
This one gives us (half a year ago) the headzup that content owners are getting into the VOD ring in a surprisingly cautious way.
- Someone wanna take a stab at "Why?" this is the approach they're taking? Why not dump their entire collection into the pool?

Also, embedded is a link to another link of a nifty article:
http://www.indiewire.com/article/focus_features_launches_vod-only_division_focus_world --> http://www.indiewire.com/article/wh...theres_a_business_in_very_low-budget_features
Focus Features is hosting a classroom for a micro-studio cooking up batches of ultra-low, sub-$1M featues.

Now, this is kinda exactly what I've been mumbling about how the key to a successful VOD feature is by hammering down on the budget.
SciFi Fantastica! has a predetermined revenue base of $XXk.
Drama Puerilicus has a predetermined revenue base of 0.2 of SciFi Fantastica!
Fine.
Now, if you can produce either at half (or better) of the projected revenue (think of how SNL is produced almost every week) then you MIGHT have a viable VOD income stream from new product.
I really don't think anyone's gonna retire on a VOD one hit wonder.
Those $8 checks streaming in month after month won't go far.

2. http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/09/weinsteins-start-vod-label/
Focus Features is doing it.
Weinstein is doing it.
I bet if I keep scratching around I find others.

First, these are competitors to our own products. Make no mistake.
Second, at some point they will surely start allowing non-natives into their distribution fold - but likely at an egregious cut.
Third, the tenative nature of both these programs is indicative of something other distributor/suppliers are not bashful of.
Maybe Amazon & Hulu peddle anyone's wares while these two seem very much interested in getting eyes to their sites, or something.
Maybe they're looking to roll these things up and package them off to someone else for administration/management rights.
I dunno.
It's something.
I just don't know what it is.

 

[rayw]

Next batch O' homework: http://www.ifp.org/resources/category/distribution/
There's ten pages of 7-8 articles each.

The top of the list looks good: http://www.ifp.org/resources/expert-distribution-tips-from-a-microeconomics-101-d-student/
Hmm...
After quasi-reading it I am unimpressed.
The title sold it, but the content was fluffed with too much "like me, love me, I'm cute and cuddly".

Nuts.
Bolts.
More substance.
Less style, please.

Now I know why the author made a 'D' in economics.
I hope his films are better.


A little more pith: http://www.ifp.org/resources/sound-it-out/
Albeit, it's more DVD/crowdsource premium oriented, but that's still useable.
"One of the key things you want to try to do with merchandise – if offer scarce goods – limited editions that will be valued by fans. In addition to selling a classic DVD, they have produced an ultra limited edition 7″ gate-fold version of the DVD (only 350 copies are available for sale). The DVD, which was printed with grooves like a vinyl record, is mounted on sleeve notes with credits for supporters of the film on IndieGoGo and thank yous by the director. The limited edition DVD also includes artwork by Amy Blackwell as well a hand numbered, 4 track baby blue vinyl soundtrack EP.

I am a firm believer that in providing customers a way to engage your film at various price points – so that they can choose a level that feels right for them. This is common for crowdfund campaigns, but is only starting to be adopted by independents in their stores."

I wonder if a regualr cut could be offered from one VOD supplier at a regular price while...
... an extended cut with bonus material could be offered from another VOD supplier at a premium price?
Hmm...


Next: http://www.ifp.org/resources/navigating-the-film-festival-maze/
"Many people give the advice to widen your festival search, but the advice tends to stop there. You really need to think broadly about different interest groups that might be interested in screening your film and then talk to people about the top festivals within those interest groups."
Should you chose to do the Platform Release route identifying festival circuits catering to special interest groups may very well be a much more sensible route than shooting for a few majors and mini-major festivals.



Well, that's all for now.
More later, of course.