When is the best time to try to make a deal with a distributor?

[Ardeus]

I'm working on a doc series and I finished the 1st chapter. It will take me 4-5 months to complete the series.

I am submitting the 1st chapter to film festivals and I already got positive answers from 4 small festivals. I am still waiting for replies from some bigger ones, but I think that the odds for any award are low.

I received a contact from a distributor and I was wondering if it's best to wait a few more months until I got more participations in festivals and the series is complete.

My original plan was to put some extra value on the films through festival participation and only then try to find distribution deals.

Maybe I am wrong and I should try to go ahead and try to find a distributor rigt now?

 

[HIFF]

Tough question...

Depends on how good your doc series is, and its likely festival and commercial value.

If it gets selected by a top tier festival (Sundance, Austin etc) your chances of landing a distribution deal will improve significantly.

Being selected by a tier one festival is obviously far from easy.

 

[Sweetie]

Do you have an offer on the table? If so, is it good? If so, take it now.

If not, what's currently the chances of getting a decent distribution offer right now? If low, continue to develop until that answer changes.

 

[Ardeus]

Thanks for the reality check

There isn't an offer on the table yet.

A good distributor contacted me because he was very intrigued by the website. I sent him the 1st chapter of the series and I think he is unsure.

I think I will take an offer from him right now if it happens.

I had some technical problems on the first chapter and I filmed in a very difficult environment with amateur equipment. All this resulted in poor image quality over a good concept.

I know my chances, but of course I will do my best to make the film end somewhere else besides youtube.

Here's the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-mWMdwcRZQ

I think I will be selected for a few more festivals, but I'm not counting on major generalistic ones, I'm not even trying at the moment.

I only went through the festival circuit with one film before and now I am trying to be more pragmatic about it and focusing on film festivals that are doc specific or that at least have a category for nature/environment.

I submitted the film to a maybe 30 film festivals that I thought were easier to get in to get the film started and I selected a few that would be important to get in, because they bring high possibilities of distribution. I haven't received an answer from the bigger ones. I also submitted the film to a couple of doc markets.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

When is the best time to try to make a deal with a distributor?

Without doubt, the best time is during the development phase! However, most amateur filmmakers essentially finish their film or get very close to finishing before they start seriously thinking about finding a distributor. At that point, it's a case of hoping one finds distributor who matches your product, in terms of the type/genre of your product (film), it's duration, it's production values and it's technical specifications. Getting a distributor before the production phase (and preferably before the pre-production phase), means you can tailor your product to the requirements of the distributor rather than hoping you can find a distributor tailored to your product.

It used to be the case that if a distributor found a particularly exceptional indie film but with unsuitable production values or tech specs, they would invest wads of cash to redo the post-production and even parts of the production to bring the film up to the required standards. This seems to be a thing of the past though, as I don't know of any examples of this happening recently.

I would say in general, if there is any chance of you getting a deal with a good distributor, jump at it, at the earliest opportunity!

G

 

[Ardeus]

Thanks.

I know I'm an amateur and that I am trying to play out of my league. But while I understand the consequences of being an amateur, I also recognize some advantages to that status.

I tried to find external financing for the project, but failed. I tried funds for film making, tv channels and I got nowhere.

This can mean a lot of things. Maybe I was not promoting the project as I should and where it should be promoted. Maybe I shouldn't be the one promoting it, because my track record in film making is very short to say the least.

But then I finished a commissioned project, I had some money in my pocket and I remembered something I read (and that goes completely against what you said) the first time I googled "How to make a documentary":

"Don't wait for the perfect time and conditions. As soon as you have minimum conditions, go ahead.".

My experience with films (and I think that this applies to all other big dreams) is that your stamina for the project drains as time goes by and as you meet obstacle after obstacle.

I've gone through this process a few times and when I succeed in making a project come real, I end up feeling I always arrive late and my enthusiasm has gone down by half at least.

So, this time I took the budget I had, which was only 10% of the budget I had estimated for the project and decided to start making cuts and changes to make it possible.

Of course this means that I have a low probability of achievement minimum technical requirements for distribution on TV for example. I knew this when I began working on the project.

On the other hand, this aproach to film making raises your odds of actually making a film. I had the time of my life. For once in my life, I didn't feel I arrived late at the project.

In my last reply to the distributor I thought about saying exactly what you mentioned on your reply: I am available to do the project again with better equipment and more people (and split the odds of getting in trouble with crocs and hypos ), but I ended up deleting that part of the message.

It all boils down to seeing in which category you want (or can) to fall: amateur or professional.

I will follow your advise and I will try to start looking for distribution deals right now.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Cash on the table is worth considering. No cash, pass.

 

[Ardeus]

Sorry to be so naïve, but why is that?

Is that to make sure that the distributor is going to put some real effort is making sales?

For films that are hard to sell, on the odd side or with all kind of quality problems but that still have a chance of raising interest of some broadcasters, if I was a distributor I would only make a deal with no cash in front.

I guess that in these cases, this would normally mean that the distributor as low standards and takes loads of stuff and puts little effort in promoting any of them.

Wandering through many distributors websites, I read that most of them require exclusivity. Now, this a reason why I think cash upfront is required or am I wrong?

What are the main points to take into account when dealing with distributors, besides the cash up-front?

 

[Sweetie]

Look up "Creative Accounting" or "Hollywood accounting" and it'll make more sense to why GA says that. It really comes down to your goals and whether the distributor is able to help you achieve those goals.

What to watch out for with Distributors will take a long, long, long time. It's really why you want to hire an experienced PMD.

 

[Ardeus]

Thanks a lot for the advise. I would be willing to invest a little on a PMD, sounds like a good idea/investment.

I don't think I can find a PMD in a radius of 1000 miles around me, so I guess I will have to look for one maybe in the US or UK.

What kind of costs are we talking here for handling the search and arranging of deals with distributors for an extreme low budget production?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I remembered something I read (and that goes completely against what you said) the first time I googled "How to make a documentary":

"Don't wait for the perfect time and conditions. As soon as you have minimum conditions, go ahead.".

This depends on what you are making your doco for. If it's for the achievement of completing a doco, submitting it to low tier festivals, simply for filmmaking practise and/or posting it on youtube, then I would say it's probably good advice. If on the other hand you're looking for a commercial distributor, then it's poor advice.

Obviously I know more about the audio side of distributor/broadcaster requirements and specs, so just on the audio side here are a few basic/general questions: Is your doco HD? Does it have a 5.1 mix? Does it have a stereo downmix? Do the 5.1 and downmix comply with EBU R128 or ATSC A/85 requirements? Have you made a DM&E mix? Is the DM&E mix undipped?

These are general tech requirement questions rather than questions related to specific broadcaster/distributor requirements or quality expectations. As you answer "no" or "I don't even know what that means" to each of the questions above, you eliminate more potential broadcasters/distributors. If you answer "no" to all of them then you've eliminated most broadcasters in most developed countries and all you're probably left with are a few very small/local broadcasters.

Of course this means that I have a low probability of achievement minimum technical requirements for distribution on TV for example.

If you don't know what the questions above mean or don't know how to achieve them or don't have the budget to employ someone who does, the chances of meeting those requirements are zero. Again, it comes down to whether you just want to make a film or whether you want to make saleable product. If it's the latter then you have to at least know what a "saleable product" is! Once you know what a saleable product is, you can allocate your budget to make sure you actually make a saleable product or, if you don't have enough of a budget, you can target what budget you do have into making sure that it's at least possible (and as easy as possible) to turn it into a saleable product at a later date, when/if more budget becomes feasible. Most amateur filmmakers just go out and make their film and simply don't bother to find out what a saleable product is and therefore don't make one! Worse still, it's usually impossible or infeasible to turn what they have made into a saleable product.

G

 

[sfoster]

Worse still, it's usually impossible or infeasible to turn what they have made into a saleable product.

G

why is that? what it makes impossible for someone to come in after the fact and create the 5.1 mix, stereo down mix, etc?

 

[Ardeus]

You lost me at the "EBU R128 or ATSC A/85 requirements".

You lost me, but you did not scare me , I know there's always a way around to solve most technical problems if I someone poses this kind of questions during any deal.

I think my case can ressonate to many other people's experiences in film making. You can imagine the kind of compromises you have to make to make a film with only 10% of your original budget.

In my case, for example, it meant that instead of shooting for 3 months I only shot for 6 weeks. For 6 weeks, instead of having a small crew, I was diving everyday by myself in a huge lake to film fish that were less than 1 inch long, while there were Nile crocs and hippos not that far.

I see that what you say is really helpful for everyone wanting to have better chances at this nearly impossible business. At the same time it's something that it's easier to learn by having a bad experience: not being able to sell your film because you didn't do proper research on broadcast technical requirements.

My main goal was to do this. Done.

My second goal was to be selected for a few film festivals. Done. It's also nice that in the middle of the emails with refusals, once in while there's an email from a festival that you haven't submitted asking you to submit you film. Although everyone keeps saying that you get a great deal of satisfaction from things you put your effort into, I believe the opposite, that good surprises are much more satisfying

My last goal is to make a little money out of it, even if it would not cover all my expenses.

I had the idea that the technical problems in a film are just something that is only taken into account if the buyer is reluctant about the film. If the buyer is enthusiastic about the film, I don't think that technical problems will seriously hinder a film's chances. Am I wrong here?

 

[AudioPostExpert]

why is that? what it makes impossible for someone to come in after the fact and create the 5.1 mix, stereo down mix, etc?

A variety of reasons: Poor track laying, a poor mix (and/or stems), inappropriate processing, no/limited access to the original (unprocessed) audio files, poor file management/session arrangement, inadequate/incomplete/incompatible/non-existent OMF/AAF and poor (original) production sound are the most common general areas, although there are other individual issues and of course a variety of issues within the general areas I've mentioned. Some of these issues are likely to be technically impossible to overcome/fix and the rest maybe impossible in practise (infeasible), due to the amount of time and money a fix would require.

Obviously I'm just talking about the audio side, I don't know what the basic tech requirements are for the visual side.

G

 

[sfoster]

A variety of reasons: Poor track laying, a poor mix (and/or stems), inappropriate processing, no/limited access to the original (unprocessed) audio files, poor file management/session arrangement, inadequate/incomplete/incompatible/non-existent OMF/AAF and poor (original) production sound are the most common general areas, although there are other individual issues and of course a variety of issues within the general areas I've mentioned. Some of these issues are likely to be technically impossible to overcome/fix and the rest maybe impossible in practise (infeasible), due to the amount of time and money a fix would require.

Obviously I'm just talking about the audio side, I don't know what the basic tech requirements are for the visual side.

G

What I took away from this was.. possibly poor production quality sound that cannot be overcome. Or user corruption or deletion of original files.

Basically I just didn't want to get blind sided by something, it sounds like I'd be okay if I wanted to try to make something legitimate on the audio side

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I had the idea that the technical problems in a film are just something that is only taken into account if the buyer is reluctant about the film. If the buyer is enthusiastic about the film, I don't think that technical problems will seriously hinder a film's chances. Am I wrong here?

Yes, you are! It does not matter how enthusiastic a buyer is about a film or how good your film is, if it does not meet their tech specs it will be rejected, period, no exceptions! Some broadcasters don't even do their own QC, they farm it out to third party QC companies. Regardless of whether it's internal or external, if you fail the QC process, you're told to fix it and re-submit, although generally you have to pay for QC re-submissions (it's usually not cheap!). If you keep failing QC and miss your delivery deadline then obviously you'd be in breach of contract.

You lost me at the "EBU R128 or ATSC A/85 requirements". You lost me, but you did not scare me , I know there's always a way around to solve most technical problems if I someone poses this kind of questions during any deal.

With all due respect, if you don't know what they are, how can you know if there's a way around them? In the case of the US, Canada and some other countries, there is no way around the issue, as it's against federal law to broadcast TV which is not fully compliant with ATSC A/85! In many EU countries it's not against the law but non-compliance with R128 will automatically fail QC.

It's unlikely that specific tech specs would be discussed during the deal making process. It would most likely be taken for granted that you'd have to meet their tech specs and of course, compliance will be written in the contract, although the actual specs themselves would probably be separate to the contract and you''d have to get/download them from the broadcaster.

G

 

[AudioPostExpert]

What I took away from this was.. possibly poor production quality sound that cannot be overcome. Or user corruption or deletion of original files.

Basically I just didn't want to get blind sided by something, it sounds like I'd be okay if I wanted to try to make something legitimate on the audio side

No! It's a question of what deliverables you have created and to what standard, and what deliverables a broadcaster/distributor requires and to what standard. Do deliverables have to be created or just tweaked? Starting a full mix again, from scratch, is going to be expensive, even provided you have all good quality unprocessed raw materials in an easy to work with format. Obviously poor production sound can be a big issue, particularly with documentaries, where ADR is extremely rarely if ever an option. But the issue isn't just what can't be overcome but what can't be overcome within a feasible budget.

The M&E mix is often a big failing of amateur filmmakers; do you know what an M&E mix is, or in the case of this thread, an M&E specifically for a documentary?

G

 

[Ardeus]

Based on my experience, there is almost always a solution for whatever technical problems that arise.

I had the bad idea of recording an important interview in a boat. The engines couldn't be stopped and the original audio is as bad as you can imagine. Although it can't be fixed completely, with a combination of noise reduction and eq it gets much better (although how that will sound in a movie theatre remains to be heard).

If that ends up being a problem, I'm sure there's a solution, even if it means cutting the interview or finding a cheap way of redoing it.

What's the problem specifically with the M&E mix? As long as you keep your audio tracks organised, what are the pitfalls that we need to be aware?

 

[sfoster]

No I don't know what M&E is or some of the other technical stuff that has been discussed, like that federal law bit.

So far everything I've done has been targeted to the internet.
Although soon I will embark on a short film targeted toward legit festivals.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Although it can't be fixed completely, with a combination of noise reduction and eq it gets much better (although how that will sound in a movie theatre remains to be heard).

The issue isn't whether or not something can be improved, It almost invariably can be, it's whether it can be improved to the point of passing the broadcaster's QC!

I'm sure there's a solution, even if it means cutting the interview or finding a cheap way of redoing it.

Cutting a scene/interview may or may not be acceptable and having to re-shoot scenes is hardly the most cost efficient way of filmmaking and sometimes isn't possible/practical!

What's the problem specifically with the M&E mix? As long as you keep your audio tracks organised, what are the pitfalls that we need to be aware?

The most common issues are: What is included in the M&E mix and whether a dipped or undipped M&E is required. But there are other issues depending on the exact requirements of the broadcaster.

G