tfc_blog

If there is one constant rule in social media marketing, it’s that things are always changing. What might have worked a year ago, six months ago, possibly even yesterday, is not working today. Each social platform is continually trying to stay relevant to followers and increasingly trying to improve profitability for shareholders and business users.

At a recent all-staff meeting for The Film Collaborative, I was asked to present recent changes to the main social platforms most relevant to marketing independent films and to advise on how to take advantage of these changes. Here are the trends and changes I think most independent filmmakers should be aware of when planning for their marketing efforts. This is a multi-part series with the first part focused on Facebook, the biggest social network (by FAR) in the world.

Facebook

Reports of Facebook’s demise have been circulating for many years, yet despite all the controversy and concerns over account hacking, user privacy and election rigging, Facebook as an enterprise has continued to grow in the past months. Worldwide, there are over 2.23 billion monthly active Facebook users as of Q2 2018, an 11% increase year over year. In fact, a recent study projects that “Facebook will command 24.5% of all video ad spending this year … and be the top social media platform with an estimated 87% share of U.S. social media video ad spending.”

In order to optimize their profitability and relevance to Facebook users, as well as implementing their commitment to better policing the content that is distributed on the social network, changes are constantly being made to the platform which affect business pages. Here are the recent ones:

  • Introduction of Admin Registration: If a Facebook page or Instagram account you administrate is going to pay to boost or advertise ANY content of a political or national legislative interest persuasion, you will not be able to place ads unless you are personally registered with Facebook. This entails a scan of your driver’s license or governmental photo ID and a letter which will come in the USPS with a code that you have to use in order to register.
  • Admins may register and carry all pages they administrate under their registration. Admins who do not register will be unable to place paid ads on content that is deemed “political” and this is a broad list. Topics like education, immigration, environment, abortion, civil rights, etc.are all deemed political and in need of permission and labeling. See the broad list here.  I would imagine that many documentaries will need to be aware of this rule. All “political” ads will be cataloged into a Political content database for anyone to search.
  • All active advertising is now publicly visible under the Ads and Info tab on any public Facebook page: From the Info and Ads tab, people will be able to view the active ads a Page is running across Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and Audience Network, even if they’re not in the target audience. Any clicks on the ads do not contribute to the click count and clicks are not charged against the advertising budget. For more info on this go here.
  • Yet another change to the newsfeed algorithm. The new algorithm puts more emphasis on data points that show active interaction. That means comments, shares and reactions (in this order) are crucial. Also, personal posts are more valuable than business posts so if you want to do well in the newsfeed, strongly encourage individuals to post for your film organically. In order to create meaningful interactions, pages need to share things that are meaningful to their followers, not just to themselves. Only if followers engage emotionally and personally will they feel the need to comment, share or interact with your content. However, Facebook will actively demote any posts that explicitly ask for actions such as “tag a friend” or “leave a comment below” so try wording your posts as questions or use words, images or videos that elicit reaction. You might also ask your followers to set your page to See First so that they will keep seeing your posts in their newsfeed, even after an algorithm change.Probably the most important advice filmmakers should be aware of, with Facebook and all other major social media platforms is embrace the power of PAID REACH!
  • Pay to play is not new on Facebook. It has been happening for at least three years and still filmmakers are putting so little into it. With Facebook further de-prioritizing content from pages and brands, its time to be educated and more prepared for paid advertising in order to reach targeted audiences in the newsfeed, among many other places. Education is especially needed for using Ad Manager rather than just boosting posts. Ad Manager gives much more precise control over where ads appear, who can be targeted, cost per click, links where traffic will go and creative to be used, but it does need practice…or working with someone who uses it. Ad Manager also is constantly evolving, so taking a crash course will only begin to cover the basics.
  • It is important to note that paid Facebook advertising DOES NOT just encompass Facebook. It stretches to include Instagram, banner ads on Instant Articles and Facebook Audience Network, Messenger, Instagram Stories, and Facebook Stories. Perhaps IGTV will be coming as an ad platform in the future. For those who think their target audience is not using Facebook, likely you will be reaching them through Facebook Ad Manager on one of the many other places they are visiting online, so do not discount Facebook as an ad platform.
  • Create mobile first content. This is especially true for videos being posted to Facebook, but also to Twitter and Instagram. Filmmakers need to stop creating only one trailer, in a 16:9 aspect ratio. Most likely your trailer is not going to be shown on TV, so start thinking about how to optimize it for mobile viewing. Mobile viewers now do not turn their phones, and often do not watch with the sound on so provide caption overlays.

Videos on Facebook perform exceptionally well, so lots of compelling video clips and stories should be created. The chart below shows all of the different formats possible and filmmaking teams should bear these in mind when editing for social media use.

As examples, reference these clips, featurettes and trailers:

Colette

Lizzie

Love, Gilda

As I hit Publish on these updates, doubtless something new will be cropping up that will either expand your ability to reach new audiences or curb that ability in some way. It is important to keep up with the the changes or work with someone who handles social media marketing on a constant basis so that the efforts you put in to reaching audiences aren’t a waste of time, labor and money. Social media is the most cost effective and measurably impactful way of putting your work in front of those who will love it, but as with all forms of marketing, it takes a budget and consistent testing to perfect the right messaging and content that will capture attention and cause an audience to seek out your full work.

My next post will cover one of the next biggest social media platforms, Instagram, and take a look at what is changing and how to optimize your efforts there.

Sheri Candler will be participating on a panel at the New Heights Arts Symposium called “Top Marketing Tips for Indie Filmmakers.” The FREE, full day symposium will be held in Santa Clarita, California on October 20. Details here.

October 16th, 2018

Posted In: Facebook, Marketing, Social Network Marketing, Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , ,


Our guest blog author this month is Vanessa Domico, who has more than 30 years of business experience in both the corporate and non-profit sectors. In 2000, Vanessa joined the team of WMM (Women Make Movies), first as the Marketing and Distribution Director, and eventually Deputy Director. Wanting to work more closely with filmmakers, Vanessa left WMM in 2004 to start Outcast Films.

As the summer winds down and the new school year approaches, Outcast Films is revving up marketing initiatives for our fall releases. Rolling around in the back of my head is how much technology has changed the business of film distribution: everything from how we position the films to our audience of teachers and librarians to how we deliver the films.

Our primary goal at Outcast is servicing our customers: teachers and librarians. These are the folks that are going to pay money to purchase and rent your film. I think you will agree with me that if teachers and librarians don’t know about the fantastic new documentary you just finished, then what’s the point?

When I started Outcast Films in 2004, we were distributing VHS tapes. A few years later, DVDs (and Blu-rays) hit the market and VHS tapes were quickly made obsolete. Now, here we are in 2018, with educational digital platforms like Kanopy, AVON (Alexander Street Press), and Hoopla, all of whom service the educational and library markets, not to mention Amazon, Netflix, iTunes and so on, digital is moving at light speed forward.

Two years ago, 95% of our income came from DVD sales. Last year that number dropped to 75% and halfway through this year DVD sales only represent approximately 45% of our total sales. By the end of 2020, I believe DVDs will be just like VHS tapes and dinosaurs. There will be some DVD/Blu-ray sales, of course, but for students, teachers, and the increased demand for on-line college classes in the U.S. digital is the future. The problem is technology should work for everyone—big and small – and it doesn’t.

For this blog, I am focusing solely on the educational market, which is Outcast Films’ area of expertise. But giant tech companies like Amazon, Netflix and Hulu also play a huge factor especially in collapsing the markets. For a couple years now, Netflix has been demanding hold back rights for up to three years from the educational platforms like Kanopy and AVON. Now other big tech companies are placing the same demands on producers: you can come with us or go with Kanopy. Most filmmakers will obviously take the bigger money contracts. (I know I would.) But ultimately, this is driving the cost down for consumers which is good for all of us who like to watch films but bad for the bank accounts of filmmakers.

Kanopy’s collection has comprised of approximately 30,000 titles and AVON has over 100,000. It is impossible for these platforms, to market all their films, all the time. That is not a knock against Kanopy or AVON, I think they have been leaders in the industry and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them. They are providing a great service that students and teachers love.

However, a recent monitoring of VIDLIB, a listserv frequented by academic librarians, reveals that many of them are beginning to rail against some platforms like Kanopy and AVON. You can access the entire discussion by signing up for the VIDLIB listserv but for your convenience, I’ve included some anonymous excerpts below:

  • “We are concerned about our rising costs from Kanopy”
  • “I believe many of us could not foresee just how expensive streaming, DSLs, etc. would cost us in the long run.”
  • “Librarians jobs have become more accountant in nature than collection development.”
  • “Trying to balance the needs of faculty/our community for access with a commitment to continue to develop and maintain a lasting collection is difficult.”
  • “Our IT department is over-taxed as is and does not have the resources to devote to hosting streaming video files.”
  • “We basically had to stop all collection development.”
  • “The paradox of increasing production and availability of media resources and shrinking acquisition budgets, due to streaming costs is a disturbing trend, particularly when considering that 100% of our video budget went to DVD acquisitions just four years ago.”
  • “(our budget for DVDs) is $20,000 and there’s no way we can purchase in-perpetuity rights for digital files; and, really, there’s no way we can ‘do it all’ or meet all needs.”
  • “We love Kanopy – but when it costs $150/year to just provide access, not ownership, to one title, it’s really, really hard to justify.”
  • “State legislators are beginning to put pressure on schools to find ways to reduce the cost of things like books, etc.”
  • “When colleges and universities are already under fire for the cost of textbooks, etc., asking students to pay one more additional cost gets lumped into the argument about the increasing cost of higher education.”

The concerns these librarians have expressed have been on a slow simmer the last few years but it’s only a matter of time before they hit a full-on pasta boil. One of the most significant concerns, and the one that will affect filmmakers most, is the high cost of streaming.

Another factor that we need to consider is the copyright law and the “Teacher’s Exemption”. With the help of the University of Minnesota, the law is simplified below:

  • The Classroom Use Exemption
  • Copyright law places a high value on educational uses. The Classroom Use Exemption (17 U.S.C. §110(1)) only applies in very limited situations, but where it does apply, it gives some pretty clear rights.
  • To qualify for this exemption, you must: be in a classroom (“or similar place devoted to instruction”). Be there in person, engaged in face-to-face teaching activities. Be at a nonprofit educational institution.
  • If (and only if!) you meet these conditions, the exemption gives both instructors and students broad rights to perform or display any works. That means instructors can play movies for their students, at any length (though not from illegitimate copies!)

In other words, if a teacher is going to use the film in their classroom, and they teach in a public university or high school, they do not need anybody’s permission to stream the film to their students.

That’s not the best news for filmmakers but I always say: facts are your friends. Knowing that they won’t need your permission, what can you do to ensure teachers see (and love) your film?

Stay with me because I’m going to ask you to do a little math:

If a librarian has a budget of $20,000 a year for films, at an average cost of $150 for a one-year digital site license (DSL), then they can expect to rent approximately 133 DSLs a year. According to Quora, there are nearly 10,000 films currently being made each year and that number is growing (thanks in large part to technology.) The bottom line is that you have a 1.3% chance that your film will be rented by that university or college. If we increase the library’s budget 5 times, your chance increases to 6.5% which are not great odds.

Facts are our friends. If independent film producers and companies like Outcast Films are going to survive in this volatile business, we need to embrace the facts to solve the problems which means doing your homework. Filmmakers who think they have a great film for the educational market, will have to make their film available through digital platforms. But if they want to increase their odds of selling the film, you will also have to do their own marketing – or hire someone who has experience in the business to help you.

Here are a few tips to help you get started:

  • Define and establish your goals as soon as possible
  • Write copy for your film with your audience in mind (i.e. teachers are going to want to know how they can use this film in their class)
  • Organize a college tour before you turn over the rights of the film
  • In the process, find academic advocates who will present the film at conferences AND recommend it to their librarians.

The educational market is a very important audience to reach for many filmmakers. I think most folks reading this blog would agree there is not a better way to educate than by using film. The educational market can also be lucrative, but librarians cannot sustain the increase in costs for steaming over the long haul. As information flows freely through technology, teachers are becoming savvy to the business and realize they don’t need permission to stream a film in their classroom if they respect the criteria set forth in the copyright law.

Remember, facts are our friends. If you think your film is perfect for the educational market, then do your homework: research, strategize and find partners who will help you.

August 1st, 2018

Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, education, Netflix, Uncategorized


May 2, 2018 • Sheri Candler, TFC Social Media Advisor

Part 2 of a two-part series on blockchain technology. Please access the first part here.

Heralded as the “trust machine,” blockchain aims to tackle a big issue: lessening the intermediaries that could potentially interfere with data and information. Processes that rely on a high degree of trust (banking, property sales, insurance, etc.) usually rely on a multitude of third parties to add expertise and integrity to transactions, especially those involving agreements between unknown parties.

With blockchain, counterparties don’t need to have an established trust relationship.

The reason this can be an a game-changer for the business of film is it could eliminate many of the intermediaries (and fees!) involved in rights management, revenue disbursement, and content licensing. Currently, the film sales process depends on written agreements between sales agents and distributors within a variety of mediums (theatrical, educational, broadcast, VOD, EST, etc.), geographical territories and currencies. These agreements can take many months to finalize before allowing for consumer sales, and revenue collection is slow.

Moreover, the revenue disbursement is often murky when it comes to the repayment of expenses, the subtraction of fees, and the parceling out what remains to those who have invested in the project. In theory, blockchain technology could ease this process through the use of smart contracts, facilitating virtual currency transactions, and protecting intellectual property by authenticating ownership and allowing rights to be granted.

But how close are we really to seeing this as a reality?

Edward Klaris is an attorney and recognized expert on intellectual property, privacy, and media law. He has spent 25 years in the media and entertainment industry for powerhouse companies like Condé Nast and The New Yorker Magazine. I asked him about digital rights and intellectual property rights management, where blockchain might be beneficial.

Ed Klaris: “First of all, let’s define the blockchain a little bit. The way I look at it, there are three different types of blockchains. There is a private block chain where the users and the providers are limited and identified through a private entry point. It’s a limited universe of people on that private blockchain. On the other side of the spectrum, there’s a public blockchain where neither users nor providers are necessarily identified in any kind of a rigorous way. This is like with Bitcoin where it doesn’t really matter who you are, you can buy Bitcoin by just going in and registering as whomever, you can be anonymous. The third type is a hybrid, all of the users are open so anyone can use it, but the providers of the content, for example, are governed. You can only be a content provider if you’ve satisfied certain registration requirements. That kind of block chain is really the type that I foresee being the media ecosystem where somebody is governing that blockchain and making sure that those who are providing content are known and trustworthy.”

Regarding protection against piracy, Klaris doesn’t think blockchain will stop this, but the new technology isn’t really conducive to pirated content.

Klaris: “In the open blockchain model, you can just rip somebody else’s movie just like they do today and put it onto a blockchain and it’s kind of immutably there. There is a risk that some piracy will occur, but I’m on the side of a not being particularly worried about that. The internet that’s been around for over 20 years is a much better vehicle for pirated work. Why would anybody want to go through the trouble of using blockchain for piracy today when you can do it so much easier on the Internet?”

One aspect that Klaris does see blockchain being suited for, and it is already being set up to service, is registry of rights holders and payments to them.

Klaris: “That part of the equation has largely been focused in the music space today. There are a couple of entities that are focusing on it in particular. There is a company called Dot Blockchain, which is producing a registry of copyright holders in the music business.”

“As you probably know, a given song might be owned by 10 different people with different addresses each of whom share 100 percent in the royalties. You need to know who they are, and where they are, and blockchain could be an excellent place to create these registries because people are authenticated or registered. Who they are, where they live, and what percentage of ownership they have can be packaged in the blockchain and payments can be made to them.”

“In a place like the music streaming services, people will listen and there is a small royalty that needs to be paid to the musician. Often those individuals cannot be found, therefore money goes unsent. But in the blockchain scenario where you’ve got a big registry of people who have identified their tracks and identified themselves, you could be able to find them and pay them through their registration.”

“But everybody is trying to go at this in their own little silos, solving for the same problems because there is a bit of a gold rush going on. There’s not a lot of cross platform use. If you register in one place, that information will not be carried over to the next place and, right now, there’s just no standardization whatsoever and that’s causing trouble. But as a concept, definitely people will be registering themselves and their works so they can be paid.”

In the realm of independent film, there are a few companies planning to start employing blockchain technology for a variety of applications. One such company is Vevue, a peer-to-peer video network app running on the Qtum blockchain platform. Vevue currently offers an iOS app. Founder Thomas Olson says their platform is different than video social networks like YouTube, or streaming professional content from Netflix because Vevue is engineered to seamlessly integrate with blockchain.

Thomas Olson: “Vevue chose Qtum because it’s a mobile first platform. With mobile, we’re targeting the easiest path to consumer adoption and ultimately benefit from the mobile viewing experience easily transferring through to our web portal. Qtum, also seeing potential in Vevue, invested in our team early—making us the very first app to build on the Qtum blockchain. We actually spent the last 10 months incubating in their Shanghai office space, the first and only team to do so.”

“Distributing a film on the blockchain means filmmakers can reach a worldwide audience without having to go through centralized services like Netflix or YouTube. The process is quite simple for organized professionals:

  1. Visit CoMakery.com and create a Token representing ownership in your content, then distribute accordingly among your contributors. For the film industry, this is especially important as investors need to be paid back their initial investment plus a premium before those same investors can share in the profits with the producer pool. In short, more revenue and a transparent accounting of that revenue ensure all parties are paid in a timely and fair manner without the need for audits.
  2. Next, you upload your content to Vevue and put the blockchain paywall in place. For the film industry, as opposed to commercial and amateur Vevue users, there are a few additional steps regarding deliverables. To handle this, we’ve partnered with Two Roads Picture Co., the distributor of the film No Postage Necessary, to be our exclusive aggregator to service both studio and independent films wanting to distribute through Vevue.
  3. Finally, collect revenue. Anytime someone pays—revenue immediately flows back to contributors per the CoMakery Token.”
Indie film “No Postage Necessary” is teaming up with Vevue for distribution in June 2018

Olsen: “Domestically, we can support traditional theatrical distribution by dropping tokens into each theater playing the film. Audience members simply record a review, upload it, and collect token reward. Then our API organizes the reviews for sites like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb to easily add next to written reviews. This incentivizes audiences and provides feedback and audience building for the distributor. On the streaming side, we’d enter the competition fold alongside traditional TVOD platforms such as iTunes, Google Play, and Amazon. We’d provide the same viewing experience with the benefit of copyright protection and transparent royalty payments for the filmmaker. And since there would be no middleman, the filmmaker would get to keep more of the revenue.”

“On the foreign side—distributing a film on blockchain means filmmakers can reach a worldwide audience without having to sell to traditional distributors in international territories. It also means we can reach more people. When you consider there are over 2 billion unbanked people in the world and many of them have smartphones, we’re now providing an entirely new group the ability to legally purchase entertainment content.”

“Other than the fact they’ll be using Vevue Tokens to interact with our functions/features, audiences should barely notice they’re using blockchain. When it comes to film, our aim is to provide the same viewing experience one would have if he or she were using a traditional centralized platform.”

Perhaps this is the best way to look at the technology. Blockchain will be the unseen backbone that powers virtual currency, content distribution, rights management and revenue payments, to name a few examples. Much like the Internet, it isn’t necessary to dive deeply into the mechanics of how this information is transferred in order to use it. In the near future, this technology will be used to power the functions that, for now, are opaque and unnecessarily complicated. An open and distributed ledger, or record book, will keep track of information and validate transactions without being centrally controlled by any one entity. This technology is only in the experimental stage now, but within 10-15 years will power many parts of the film business that we struggle with today.

May 1st, 2018

Posted In: blockchain, Blockchain, Digital Distribution, Distribution

Tags: , , , ,


April 19, 2018 • Kathy Susca, TFC Films Manager

‘Blockchain’ is 2018’s buzziest word in regard to film distribution, so we want to make sure all of our readers are savvy to what it means, how it works, and its potential for distribution. This is the first post of 2-part blog on blockchain—in this article, we’ll define what the blockchain is, explain its technical structure, and discuss some of the possible applications for media. In part 2, we’ll discuss industry perspectives on advantages of these systems.

At its core, blockchain technology is based on a very simple concept. It is a distributed ledger system, meaning that its primary purpose is tracking transactions, like a pen-and-paper accounting ledger. ‘Distributed’ means that it is de-centralized; it is not maintained or controlled by any single authority or company. Rather, it is maintained and updated by the user base, on a peer-to-peer (P2P) basis.

The ledger is organized as a sequence of blocks (the “blockchain”), each including multiple transactions. It generally works like this:

  • Any user can join the network and read all past transactions in the blockchain.
  • To create a new transaction, the user signs a request and broadcasts it to the network.
  • Other users can collect pending transactions, create a block and add it to the blockchain.

The special thing about blockchains is that blocks added to the chain are a permanent, verified, and public record of the history of all transactions within the system. To avoid tampering of blocks, the process of adding new blocks to the chain is made intentionally difficult: users compete to verify blocks and add them to the chain, and they are rewarded when they succeed.

In this article, we will be using Bitcoin as an example because it was the first successful large-scale implementation of a blockchain, where each block contains records of money transfers. However, blockchain technology is not limited to financial transactions—it can be used to record copyright ownership, royalty payouts, etc. It is important to understand that blockchain technology is just a method of recording data and verifying its existence at a certain point in time; different systems that we will discuss later in this article all employ their own unique implementation of these concepts.

Because of cryptocurrency’s prominence at the moment, there is a wealth of information available for further reading. The New York Times recently posted an excellent animated video with a basic explanation of cryptocurrency. Using Bitcoin as a lens, we can start to understand blockchain systems, their uses, and their limitations.

Hash functions are a key element of blockchains: they are used to “chain” blocks together and to verify their contents. A hash function generates a unique numeric ID from the data of an input block, like a fingerprint. If even one character is changed in the input data, the resulting hash can change entirely: this makes it very difficult to alter input data and get the same fingerprint. Bitcoin uses the SHA-256 hash function: you can try to enter some text here and see how the resulting hash changes if one character is altered.

SHA-256(“Singin’ in the Rain”) = d5aadb20219ce5519161f1dc72169104227fdd851a253ac2bdbbc2c80b092f12SHA-256(“Singing in the Rain”) = eb79ad96dac444828188ed532b5169e0e80ec993803d887daed5a095427638ca

Hash functions play two roles in the blockchain: linking a new block to the previous one and controlling the creation rate of new blocks.

from BraveNewCoin.com’s introduction to Blockchain technology

Linking new blocks to previous ones: Each block contains the fingerprint (hash) of the previous block. See the illustration above: when a block is added to the chain, it links itself to the chain by including the prior block’s fingerprint in addition to pending transactions. In this way, each block’s fingerprint is dependent on the chain of all blocks coming before it. Therefore, each block’s hash is a fingerprint for the history of the entire chain.

Controlling the creation rate of new blocks: In Bitcoin, blocks are added to the chain when they are “mined,” and users can earn money for mining blocks. To mine a block, miners must add a mystery number to the block, to make its hash start with a required number of zeroes. Given that hash functions are, by design, almost impossible to reverse-engineer, the only effective way to mine a block is to simply keep plugging in different values for the mystery number until it works. Once a block is mined, it is broadcast to the network and it becomes part of the blockchain, together with all of its transactions, and additional transactions rewarding the miner with new Bitcoins and transaction fees. There are server farms doing this lucrative work, all day every day.

One of the main points of a blockchain system is to do away with a potentially fallible central authority overseeing the record keeping. Thus blockchains are necessarily public – at least to the users on that system. The monetary rewards coming from mined blocks are how the Bitcoin system motivates its users to participate in processing transactions and adding them to the blockchain. But how does the system guarantee that recorded blocks are trustworthy, that a transaction won’t be removed or altered, creating an alternative history of recorded transactions?

Well, imagine that two blocks are added to the chain at exactly the same moment, creating two competing branches of the blockchain (this is called “forking”). As each chain grows, how does the network decide which one is the official record? The longer chain wins, and the transactions in the shorter fork go back into the pool of pending transactions. A transaction isn’t considered ‘confirmed’ until it is several blocks back in the chain, and therefore unlikely to be in a forked chain that will be dissolved. It currently takes about 10 minutes for a block to be mined, so transactions are considered ‘confirmed’ after about an hour (6 blocks). As the chain gets longer, the individual blocks (and the records they contain) become more and more secure.

To tamper with a block that is already in the chain, it would be necessary to do the difficult work of re-mining that block, and all the other blocks after it, in order to create a forked chain that is longer than the original chain. Meanwhile, other miners would be adding blocks to the original chain, making it longer and longer. In order to beat the rest of the network (working on the legitimate fork), a malicious user would have to implement what is known as a“51% attack”—to control 51% of the mining power in the entire network to have a statistically likely chance of mining several blocks in a row. Since having 51% of the hashrate is prohibitive both logistically and financially, and even then the success of the attack would not be guaranteed, users stand to make more profit by protecting and securing the blockchain.

Blockchain systems use a variety of methods to determine the probability of a user/node being the next one to add a block, but by far the most popular method is “Proof of Work.” In this system, a user’s hashrate (how many hashes they can compute, per second) determines their likelihood to mine the next block. Server farms, for instance, are more likely to mine a block quickly than an individual user. This is the system used by Bitcoin that we’ve been describing so far. Other systems are Proof of Stake (a lottery based on how much commodity a user owns), Leased Proof of Stake (users pool their commodities and share earnings), Delegated Proof of Stake (users elect nodes), and Proof of Importance (‘worthy’ users are selected). In each of the systems above, the users are financially motivated to maintain the integrity of the system, whether the benefit is direct, indirect, or collective.

This necessarily-public nature of the blockchain carries with it some privacy concerns for the users. All transactions a user engages in are publicly available, and therefore traceable. Anybody with access to the blockchain records is able to reconstruct a user’s entire history of transactions (and therefore discover their account balance). If that user is successfully identified as a specific person or entity, their privacy has now been compromised.

With Bitcoin, this problem has been tackled through the use of addresses – unique alpha-numeric identifiers linked to a user’s account. Each user can have multiple addresses, and it is standard practice to create a new one for each transaction in order to ensure privacy of both parties. When used properly, addresses can anonymize transactions.

Copyright Management: A blockchain system would be ideal for verifying who owns the copyright on a piece of intellectual property at any given point in time. Any sale of rights could potentially be recorded and accessible to the public. Furthermore, quoted in Information Week, Tiffany Li of the Yale Law School’s Information Society Project says, “Technically, one could imagine generating a hash for every piece of intellectual property you would like to identify as your creation and using a public blockchain-based registry to authenticate ownership of IP.” Other experts point out that integrating the new blockchain copyright management systems to work seamlessly with ‘legacy systems’ would be a complex, costly, and years-long process. However, some companies have already begun this work, like Po.et.

Royalty tracking and payouts: In a system in which media is created by more than just a single artist and distributed across a variety of platforms worldwide, royalty payments can become very complex. Blockchain Royalty Corp is one company doing this type of work in the music industry, and their system integrates smart contracts to automate the process and ensure that payouts are done accurately. The Open Music Initiative takes the idea of royalty tracking to the next level, by designing a system that also helps fans discover other works the artists are credited on.

Crowdfunding: iProdoos will allow the users of the platform to “decide what content is made and available on the iProdoos platform and how long that content lives”—essentially they’re crowdsourcing programming via crowdfunding on the blockchain. Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) are a way to raise funds for a startup by pre-selling your cryptocurrency to investors. This type of model could be applied to fundraising for a film project, and facilitating paying back the investors using the blockchain records.

Direct Distribution: Creators could potentially use blockchain technology to track transactions. However, the content itself would likely have to be stored and distributed using a different platform, as the blockchain is not intended to store large amounts of data like a video file. One potential path would be to integrate blockchain verification with BitTorrent P2P technology, in which media is shared directly between users and the dissemination of the files is crowd-based. Like blockchain technologies, BitTorrent negates the need for a central company or figure to maintain records or even be involved in transactions beyond providing the platform. IPFS seeks to replace the current HTTP web with a decentralized P2P system (that employs hash functions to identify information in nodes)—ideal for saving bandwidth when sharing large files. Decent, Lightstreams, Treeti, White Rabbit, Cinezen, SingularDTV, Stream Space, and Vevue for example, are just a few of the companies already focusing on this type of distribution.

Some hurdles to consider: We’ve spent a lot of time discussing how users in Bitcoin are motivated to participate in the upkeep of the system. In decentralized systems, users must be incentivized, and a non-cryptocurrency-based system (that cannot necessarily offer financial incentives) complicates that issue. The public vs. private tension must be resolved as well—if a copyright attribution is anonymous, what good does it do? We have also discussed data storage concerns for large media files. Furthermore, while the blockchain may in itself be a secure ledger system, the peripheral systems that make it practical for use (data storage, cryptocurrency wallets, file encryption, smart contracts, etc.) are not necessarily as invulnerable as the blockchain itself. Finally, cryptocurrencies using blockchain technology aren’t necessarily well-suited to microtransactions due to transaction fees, so setting up royalty payouts on individual consumer purchases as they happen would be cost-prohibitive.

Kai Stinchcombe, a prominent critic of blockchain technology points out that “ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain,” and goes on to detail the lack of recourse if you are defrauded in these systems, as well as the overall clunkiness of the technology in comparison to centralized systems. In a subsequent article, the same author writes, not without reason, “Blockchain systems do not magically make the data in them accurate or the people entering the data trustworthy, they merely enable you to audit whether it has been tampered with.” We are just scratching the surface here, but these are conversations that must be had if artists are going to monetize their work using these new technologies.

Of course it is not possible to know what the future will bring, but let’s imagine these hurdles are all surmountable, that you could integrate the above technologies (Cosmos for example facilitates interoperability between blockchain systems). Then, you could develop a system that brings together copyright management, royalty payouts, direct-to-consumer-sales, distributed storage of media, and smart contract functionality; a system with completely decentralized, direct distribution and rights management that is functional across all cryptocurrencies. That would be a real media revolution—and it may not be too far off.

Keep an eye out for the second part of our series on the blockchain, in which we explore some entertainment industry perspectives on the advantages that blockchain technology can bring to some of the more challenging pieces of film distribution that we currently have.

How Bitcoin Mining Works
Bitcoin Wiki
Blockchain: What Business Leaders Need to Know About This Disruptive Technology
Blockchain Technology Moving Into Cable, Advertising Sectors
Can Blockchain Technology Solve Copyright Attribution Challenges of Digital Work?
Film Slate To Be Financed by Digital Currency and Distributed Via Blockchain
What is Blockchain and How Will It Change the World?
How Blockchain Could Start To Make Waves in Media and Entertainment in 2018
Betting on the Bitcoin Blockchain

April 19th, 2018

Posted In: blockchain, Blockchain, Digital Distribution, Distribution, privacy, technology


If you missed our SXSW Case Study Discussion on The Light of the Moon, or if you just want a copy of the accompanying PowerPoint deck, you can download it here.

Case study discussion of the distribution of SXSW Winner The Light of the Moon diving into topics including: the platform theatrical release, educational, festivals and hybrid theatrical distribution, collaborative nature of the release involving key vendors, the filmmakers, grassroots partnerships, corporate sponsorships, use of social media, publicity firms on both coasts and representing lead actress Stephanie Beatriz, release timing analysis, and socio-cultural impact objective, all while coordinating TVOD and international licensing alongside utilizing the Amazon Festival Stars AVD offering and reconciling when to go direct-to-platform vs. license to buyers.

Participants: Michelle Mower, Imagination Worldwide (Distributor • International Sales Agent), Orly Ravid, The Film Collaborative/MSK (Festival/Theatrical Distribution), Michael Cuomo, Gran Fallon (Producer of The Light of the Moon), and Myriam Schroeter, Stedfast Productions (Co-Producer of The Light of the Moon)

March 14th, 2018

Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, case studies, Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, education, Film Festivals, iTunes, Key Art, Marketing, Publicity, Social Network Marketing, Theatrical, Vimeo



A recent online web series featured our founder, Orly Ravid, as well as some powerhouse guests in indie film producing and distribution, hosted by WestDocOnline. Here is what we learned from the 1 hour+ panel, primarily focused on documentaries.

  1. Music clearance is important. Surprisingly, many new filmmakers do not realize that any music used in a film must be licensed, both the publishing (the person who wrote the song) and the master (the entity that recorded the song) rights must be secured.  Distribution contracts cannot be signed if music clearance has not been secured on your film. This is especially crucial for anyone looking to make a music documentary. For a good primer on this, visit this article: A Filmmaker’s Guide to Music Licensing .
  2. A devoted core fanbase can make a film successful. Richard Abramowitz named several documentaries that his company has theatrically distributed that had an excited and motivated fanbase that could be tapped into with less marketing money than a wide audience film.
  3. There is value in having a global marketing campaign, rather than one territory at a time. Cristine Dewey of ro*co films champions the idea that if your domestic distributor is already launching a marketing campaign, much of which will be found by audiences outside of the U.S. because of online marketing, it makes sense to time theatrical releases in other countries to coincide.
  4. Revenues from documentary sales. Netflix will pay anywhere from low 5 figures to high 6 or even 7 figures for documentaries. It depends on the film’s pedigree. Also, Amazon Festival Stars program was offering $200,000 to filmmakers at the Toronto International Film Festival in exchange for  making Amazon Video Direct the exclusive SVOD home for the film. Filmmakers can wait up to 18 months to upload to the platform, allowing for further festival and theatrical revenue.
  5. Distribution is a business. While it is all great and good to produce a film using credit cards, an iPhone and the good will of your friends, distribution is an integral part of the process and needs a budget. “In what world would someone say I have a great idea for a pencil. I’m going to raise $100,000 to make pencils. Then you have a warehouse filled with pencils, and then think about how you will get these into Staples? That’s not a business plan, that’s lunacy. But every day, people do that because this is art. Hope is not a strategy. You have to have a plan and you have to have a budget,” says Richard Abramowitz. “What’s the point of making the film if no one sees it?Marketing and distribution budgeting is the only way to assure the film will get seen and make an impact, short of an excellent marketing commitment by an honest distributor, something so relatively few documentary films enjoy,” said Orly Ravid.

To watch the full panel, find it below.

January 10th, 2018

Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, Documentaries, International Sales, Marketing

Tags: , , , , , ,


Updated January 25, 2018 to take into consideration changes announced for Facebook and Instagram. 

As 2017 winds to a close, I wanted to take some time to evaluate what I’ve learned in the social media space this year, both in my work with independent filmmakers and working for public media.

Between those two endeavors, I have helped to create, test and connect audiences to over 350 short videos made specifically for social media. The vast majority of those were less than one minute in length, included captions burned into each video, and used a paid social approach to ensure that the videos were seen by a highly targeted audience who would be most likely to share them.

Here are the main things I want to share with you as you contemplate your use of social media in 2018:

    • Cardinal rule on social: The content you post must be interesting and relevant to motivate a reaction from the viewer. Boring links, boring videos, boring images, boring calls to action that clearly only benefit you WILL BE IGNORED [and will be demoted in the newsfeed by Facebook algorithm]. The organic videos that performed the best for me were a story in themselves. They weren’t trailers, they weren’t promo videos, they didn’t often include a call to action on the video, and they weren’t random behind the scenes footage. The stories took one main idea and presented it first, then explained the idea, then sometimes ended with a question to encourage people to comment. The more shares and comments the videos received, the more views it got.  But why am I mainly talking about videos? Because…
    • By 2021, 82% of global internet traffic will be attributed to video. As more and more newsfeeds are filled with short video content, your account will need to compete. You’re a filmmaker so generating quality video content should be easy for you. But remember, 90% of the videos people see in their feeds are watched with the sound off. Better to make a video that is not audio driven, but rather driven by images that can tell a story on its own. Also, it is best to present these videos in a square format, rather than in a horizontal rectangle. As most people now access social media platforms via their mobile devices, a square video (1:1) fills the screen and gives a much richer experience. Widescreen videos are crunched and make captions difficult to read. See good examples here and here.

  • Facebook Live, Instagram Live, Live Story for Snapchat, Periscope for Twitter, Youtube Live. Live or near live experiences will continue to proliferate on social. Some of this may be ephemeral content, that lives for only 24 hours. If you have an exciting event happening or you have access to a person with a large following, you should be utilizing live sessions on social media. Facebook, in particular, will be highlighting videos that receive lengthy interaction in the comment section. If you want to see a comparison between Youtube Live and Facebook Live, CLICK HERE.
  • Influencer marketing is a thing, but it isn’t free. It is awesome to think that if you tag a celebrity, they will share your tweet, but the real impact comes from those who have an engaged following instead of a vague, large number. Look toward influencers that have a niche following and are more willing to get excited about your project than a tweet from a celeb who has little connection to your project. Another idea could be to utilize influencers as social media content creators for your project. Rather than hoping to access their network, perhaps you can pay them to create for yours. Be advised, the Federal Trade Commission is now cracking down on sponsored posts that do not publicly disclose a paid sponsorship arrangement. It is better to work with companies that specialize in bringing influencers and brands together, like MediaKix  Mostly Sunny  and Heartbeat as they are usually up to date on the regulations and how to negotiate deals. For an idea on pricing for working with influencers, see this Digiday report.
  • Facebook organic posting is nearly dead. If you are still posting links, photos and videos that do not regularly receive multiple comments, you can stop. The company has just announced that it will stop showing posts by brands and publishers if those posts are not inspiring conversation (comments) as their new focus is on bringing people together, not pushing traffic and views. Facebook is not interested in sending traffic to other websites or providing a passive viewing experience (such as video views with no comments). This change will really hit pages that have not been inspiring conversation in their comment sections. However, don’t ask for comments in your posts. Engagement bait will be demoted in the newsfeed. This change will not affect paid promotion.
  • Which means that you MUST invest in social advertising. Yes, you could boosts your organic posts, but you really should be set up on Facebook Business Manager and running campaigns through Ad Manager. You need a monthly budget to spend. Anyone who has tried to build up a following or reach their following on social will know the time of reliable, free, organic reach has passed, and it isn’t going to return since social media platforms have shareholders who want to see revenue. The good news is this allows for smarter advertising spend for a trackable return than publicity or more traditional methods of advertising (posters, postcards, flyers, TV/radio/outdoor/print). While a marketing mix is important and if you can spend to hire a publicist for earned media, and place media buys in as many outlets as possible, then by all means do it. But try tracking that write up in the New York Times or Variety to any kind of monetary return outside of an ego boost or calls from your friends to say they saw it. It is nearly impossible unless you run a survey at the theater or on a digital VOD service to prove that your publicity spend or traditional advertising spend resulted in any measurable return. There is so much proof of awareness and actual revenue tied to a digital advertising effort, even over the number of Likes/Retweets/Favorites and “Impressions.” Added bonus for Facebook advertising, you can create Custom Audiences to keep remarketing to those who have shown an interest in your posts rather than spending to hit the disinterested. You’ll just need to install the Facebook pixel on your website, store, Eventbrite etc in order to track properly and accumulate that audience for later targeting. Also, if you are going to be setting a monthly budget, you need to be setting monthly goals for growth. How do you know if what you are doing is working if you don’t measure against a goal? I wrote a piece on tracking social media earlier this year.
  • Twitter growth is the slowest of all the major social media platforms. If you are building up a big following on Twitter, you may want to quickly branch out. Twitter is great for breaking news stories, but rather sucks for self promotional tweets.
  • Instagram is also making changes, but they have been a little less forthcoming in this news. If you are using Instagram for business, such as having an account related to your film, you should make sure that it is set up as a business account, not a personal account. Just as years ago, Facebook stopped supporting personal profiles that were being used for business, Instagram is starting to do the same. Besides, it is great to access analytics that are offered on business accounts, so go ahead and set your account up like that or convert. Also, you should be taking advantage of Instagram Stories, rather than just posting photos and videos. Stories can now be archived on your account so they won’t disappear after 24 hours, as long as you choose to feature them on your account. For instructions, go HERE. One last bit of advice, start following hashtags that are relevant to your project. Accounts now have the ability to follow a hashtag, not just other accounts. See more on that HERE.
  • This year, Facebook introduced Watch and rumor has it that they will start prioritizing shows rather than only short content in their newsfeed. With this knowledge (and the vast audience that Facebook reaches), have you considered turning that feature script into a series instead? A series of content with an ongoing narrative between episodes provides many benefits: increased audience retention, strict production schedule and time management, sponsorship opportunities, and being able to create a loyal community over the long run instead of starting over with each new project. Social media is a great place to ensure distribution of said series. It is also a low cost place to test out plots, characters, flow, audience reactions etc. without having to gather heavy investment for a feature that is untested and has no clear path distribution.

For everyone here at The Film Collaborative, I wish you a happy, creative, industrious, and prosperous new year. Look for members of The Film Collaborative at Sundance 2018 and at many other film festivals and events in the coming year.

December 17th, 2017

Posted In: Facebook, Social Network Marketing, Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


filmdoo_logo

CEO & Cofounder, FilmDooby Orly Ravid.

I was introduced to indie film platform FilmDoo.com and decided to share it with you all here by asking FilmDoo some questions. I spoke to Weerada Sucharitkul, CEO & Co-Founder and most of what is below are Weerada’s own words in response to my questions.

What is FilmDoo’s Mission?

We help people to discover and watch great films from around the world, including documentaries and shorts. Essentially, we help people discover non-Hollywood films, which include independent films from the US and UK, as well as mainstream blockbuster films from China and Japan, for example. We not only help people to discover films but languages and regions, and are very much a ‘TripAdvisor for Films.’ On FilmDoo, you can discover films from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe, many of which we are the first to show internationally outside of film festivals. Furthermore, we also have a very engaged global film community (users can have an active social profile and leave reviews, comments as well as engage with other community members) and are an extensive international film database source, which is increasingly becoming an alternative to IMDB for foreign language films. As such, we are not only a VOD platform, we are more than that—a global database of foreign films as well as rapidly growing international community of film fans.

How does the platform work? What is FilmDoo’s Business Model?

FilmDoo’s current model is TVOD (pay-per-view) for feature films on the main FilmDoo site. We are a global online streaming platform and have the ability to sell and show films anywhere in the world. We are at over 500,000 visitors a month, with users from 194 countries. As we are increasingly getting a lot of traffic from emerging countries (e.g. Indonesia is now our second biggest traffic country, and countries like Turkey, India, Malaysia and Philippines make our Top 10 list), we are now looking at more ways to further monetize from these parts of the world and could be looking to do an AVOD model in these countries in the near future. We are able to geo-block for any country combination, and only require one month notice from filmmakers or content owners if they would like to change the geo-block country combination. We are able to accept transactions in UK Pound, US Dollar, Australian Dollar and Euro, as well as Paypal and AliPay (for Chinese-based users).

Which types of films do best on your platform?

Search ’gay movies’ and ’lesbian movies,’ and you will see we rank very high on Google from a SEO perspective. At the moment, their best selling category is LGBT films. FilmDoo claims to already have one of the biggest LGBT online film collections in the world. In terms of typical demographics, the audience base is a lot younger than typical ‘world cinema’ audience. They tend to be globally mobile, active on social media, speak many languages and/or learning languages, and come from an international or expatriate background (such as second generation French or Italian). Human rights documentaries have also tended to do well. As such, we see strong appeal for films that fit our current demographics: average age 22-39, young, learning languages, loves travelling and enjoys watching coming-of-age movies, first love movies, thriller movies, road movies, LGBT movies and human rights and social issues.

Where do most of your consumers live? Explain which countries.

Our current Top 10 countries by traffic, in order, include: 1. US, 2. Indonesia, 3. Turkey, 4. UK, 5. Turkey, 6. Malaysia, 7. Philippines, 8. Egypt, 9. Germany, and 10. Saudi Arabia. However, in terms of sales, our top selling countries include: US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Netherlands and India. As you can appreciate, given the global nature of our traffic, for many in emerging countries in Asia and Africa, for example, the current TVOD price point is either too high for them, they do not have credit card or they are more used to an AVOD or free viewing model and not used to making transactions online. Hence why we are now exploring AVOD as an option to do more in the rest of the world.

What is the revenue split? Are there any costs recouped?

Revenue share is 70/30, same as iTunes. There are no costs to put the films on the FilmDoo platform, no further additional transcoding or ingestion costs. There are no marketing costs recouped either. The mission is to make it as easily and as flexible as possible for film makers to be able to put their films online at no additional costs and with maximum ease to be able to maximize their full global potential.

Some of their top selling content partners are LGBT content partners who have a collection of films with us and are able to make a decent sum month (I was asked not to share the exact sum publicly).” They note doing increasingly better for other film genres and collections. Launched in 2015, FilmDoo claims to be growing rapidly and expects to grow its catalog and audience.

Please speak to the simplicity, ease, and flexibility of the platform as far as geo-blocking, limiting territories, and the simple delivery, non-exclusivity…

Simplicity, ease and flexibility are absolutely at the heart of what we do at FilmDoo. Our goal is to reduce current barriers to international distribution in the film industry and most of all, to help films, especially films that have had their festival runs and may have already sold in a few territories, to continue to be able to monetize and reach their full global potential. That’s why we want to make it as easy as possible for them.

This includes:

  • Ability to geo-block to any country combination requirement, with only one month notice required if you need to make changes to this. We will be able to sell your film in any country.
  • We will try our best to work with your material—we can take both HD and SD files (where HD is not available), AppleProRes and H.264. We can accept the digital files via our FTP, WeTransfer, Aspera as well as any other way.
  • We can also accept film files sent to us in hard drives by post.
  • Where the films are not available digitally, we will also accept DVD/ Blurays and will digitize these at no additional costs to the film makers.
  • We do require that all films have English subtitles. If available, it would also help to have native language caption files as separate files (e.g. English captions for English language films, French caption for French language films, etc), although this is not required.
  • Our preference is for clean film files with separate subtitle files in .SRT or .WebDTT format.
  • However, if separate subtitles are not available, we can also accept film files with burnt in English subtitles.

What is FilmDoo’s Term?

Our terms are 2 years non-exclusive.

As you will see, we are much more flexible and easier to work with than most other global platforms, because our number one goal is to make it as easy as possible for film makers and content owners to put their films online and reach their global audience.

Are filmmakers able to see the data of where their audiences live (country) and how many transactions per each country? Is there a dashboard?

Yes, we have an online reporting dashboard. Film makers or content owners will be able to log in any time to see their total sales in real time. They will be able to see where the sales are coming from, the countries their films are getting the most interest in, and where available, the demographics breakdown of people interested in their films such as gender and age.

Can filmmakers contract with you directly?

Absolutely, please feel free to email me directly at wps@filmdoo.com. In addition, we can also be contacted at our general email: info@filmdoo.com. Please also feel free to follow our news, film releases and reach out to us on our social media: FacebookTwitterYouTube.

What is FilmDoo doing to increase its consumer/audience reach?

Through our proprietary marketing technology, we are doing very well on SEO, where we are able to reach global audience interested in Lesbian and Gay movies as well as films by language collection. Furthermore, our proprietary technology include our personalized film recommendation engine.

At the same time, we also have a very strong Editorial and Curation team, where we continuously help to promote our films via our Blog, YouTube channel, social media and newsletters. We are also able to interview directors and film makers at no additional costs to help create promotional and editorial content. We also have community user-generated content, such as film playlists and film reviews, which are growing rapidly.

Most importantly, what is unique about FilmDoo, is our “DooVOTE” concept, whereby we are empowering users to discover films not yet available in their country and to express a demand in seeing that film. Consequently, we are using this data to try to go after the films we know there is interest from our community:

filmdoo.com/doovote. To increase our audience reach, we often do a lot of on the ground marketing, including partnerships with film festivals and giving presentations and talks at film workshops and events.

Please share anything else you think is relevant — including that you may turn into an SVOD or AVOD

I think it’s important to note that unlike other players in this space, we are not going after the already hardcore indie or world cinema film fans. We are identifying and converting new film audiences, many of which are traditional mainstream audiences, who may be increasingly interested in exploring new and refreshing content, whether from a cultural and language perspective or from an awareness of gender or human rights topics. Effectively, our audience is an increasingly growing group of people who are becoming more interested in travel, studying or traveling abroad, as well as forming multi-cultural families. FilmDoo is all about providing a truly global platform to traditionally underrepresented voice, such as emerging film makers and female and LGBT film makers from around the world. Their films deserve to be discovered and seen legally and FilmDoo is building a community and global platform to help them achieve that.

Sydney Levine has written an article on FilmDoo as well. Please read it here.

Please note: I did not publish information about revenue per FilmDoo’s request as that is proprietary information, but I am told I can discuss it privately/confidentially with filmmakers.

October 18th, 2017

Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, DIY, International Sales

Tags: , , , ,


Last month, TFC invited a select group of Los Angeles-based filmmakers to share their knowledge and specific details about how they marketed and distributed their independent films. We learned a lot and we thank those who took part that day. Now, we want to open up this opportunity to all creators, whether you make features, short films, or web series, so that we all may learn from each other in an anonymous, but factual way.

We know, many other entities have tried to compile statistics and details and have invited independent creators to contribute, but we think a lot of that information has been less than forthcoming or distributed within only a small subsection of creators who participate in closed labs or mentoring sessions. We propose to do something different.

For the next month, we are asking any creator who has actually participated in the marketing and distribution of their project (this is a requirement) to come forward and fill out this 10 question survey in detail. No questions will be asked about the identity of the creator or of the project which should allow participants to be completely honest about their efforts and results. The results will be compiled into a whitepaper of best practices and charts showing budget levels and revenue levels that will benefit the creators operating in this turbulent and confusing period of plenty of consumer choice, but creator uncertainty about the financial viability of their work. The whitepaper will be published online, for all to download for free.

We sincerely hope you will agree to help us, all of us, by participating. Our aim is to have the whitepaper ready for distribution by the beginning of the new year. TFC mailing list members will be notified first, so if you want a first look, please join that list here. Everyone will have access via this blog once the document is published.

We’re really excited to learn what creators are doing and we know you will find their insight invaluable. Thanks for participating!

September 11th, 2017

Posted In: case studies, Distribution, Marketing

Tags: , , , , ,


By Smriti Mundhra

Smriti Mundhra is a Los Angeles-based director, producer and journalist. Her film A Suitable Girl premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2017 and is currently playing at festivals around the world, including Sheffield Doc/Fest and AFI DOCS. Along with her filmmaking partner Sarita Khurana, Smriti won the Albert Maysles Best New Documentary Director Award at the Tribeca Film Festival.

asuitablegirl

I recently attended a panel discussion at a major film festival featuring funders from the documentary world. The question being passed around the stage was, “What are some of the biggest mistakes filmmakers make when producing their films?” The answers were fairly standard—from submitting cuts too early to waiting till the last minute to seek institutional support—until the mic was passed to one member of the panel, who said, rather condescendingly, “Filmmakers need to be aware of what their films are worth to the marketplace. Is there a wide audience for it? Is it going to premiere at Sundance? Don’t spend $5 million on your niche indie documentary, you know?”

Immediately, my eyebrow shot up, followed by my hand. I told the panelist that I agreed with him that documentaries—really, all independent films—should be budgeted responsibly, but asked if he could step outside his hyperbolic example of spending $5 million on an indie documentary (side note: if you know someone who did that, I have a bridge to sell them) and provide any tools or insight for the rest of us who genuinely strive to keep the marketplace in mind when planning our films. After all, documentaries in particular take five years on average to make, during which time the “marketplace” can change drastically. For example, when I started making my feature-length documentary A Suitable Girl, which had its world premiere in the Documentary Competition section of this year’s Tribeca Film Festival, Netflix was still a mail-order DVD service and Amazon was where you went to buy toilet paper. What’s more, film festival admissions—a key deciding factor in the fate of your sales, I’ve learned—are a crapshoot, and there is frustratingly little transparency from distributors and other filmmakers when it comes to figuring out “what your film is worth to the marketplace.”

Sadly, I did not get a suitable answer to my questions from the panelist. Instead, I was told glibly to “make the best film I could and it will find a home.”

Not acceptable. The lack of transparency and insight into sales and distribution could be the single most important reason most filmmakers don’t go on to make second or third films. While the landscape does, indeed, shift dramatically year to year, any insight would make a big difference to other filmmakers who can emulate successes and avoid mistakes. In that spirit, here’s what I learned about sales and distribution that I wish I knew a year ago.

As any filmmaker who has experienced the dizzying high of getting accepted to a world-class film festival, followed by the sobering reality of watching the hours, days, weeks and months pass with nary a distribution deal in sight can tell you, bringing your film to market is an emotional experience. This is where your dreams come to die. A Suitable Girl went to the Tribeca Film Festival represented by one of the best agent/lawyers in the business: The Film Collaborative’s own Orly Ravid (who is also an attorney at MSK). Orly was both supportive and brutally honest when she assessed our film’s worth before we headed into our world premiere. She also helped us read between the lines in trade announcements to understand what was really going on with the deals that were being made – because, let’s face it, who among us hasn’t gone down the rabbit hole of Deadline.com or Variety looking for news of the great deals other films in our “class” are getting? Orly kept reminding us that perception is not reality, and that many of these envy-inducing deals, upon closer examination, are not as lucrative or glamorous as they may seem. Sometimes filmmakers take bad deals because they just don’t want to deal with distribution, have no other options, and can’t pursue DIY, and by taking the deal they get that sense of validation that comes with being able to say their film was picked up. Peek under the hood of some of these trade announcements, and you’ll often find that the money offered to filmmakers was shockingly low, or the deal was comprised of mostly soft money, or—even worse—filmmakers are paying the distributors for a service deal to get their film into theaters. There is nothing wrong with any of those scenarios, of course, if that’s what’s right for you and your film. But, there is often an incorrect perception that other filmmakers are somehow realizing their dreams while you’re sitting by the phone waiting for your agent to call.

Depressed yet? Don’t be, because here’s the good news: there are options, and once you figure out what yours are, making decisions becomes that much easier and more empowering.

Start by asking yourself the hard questions. Here are 12+ things Orly says she considers before crafting a distribution strategy for the films she represents, and why each one is important.

  1. At which festival did you have your premiere? “Your film will find a home” is a beautiful sentiment and true in many ways, but distributors care about one thing above all others: Sundance. If your film didn’t beat the odds to land a slot at the festival, you can already start lowering your expectations. That’s not to say great deals don’t come out of SXSW, Tribeca, Los Angeles Film Festival and others, but the hard truth is that Sundance still means a lot to buyers. Orly also noted that not all films are even right for festivals or will have a life that way, but they can still do great broadcast sales or great direct distribution business – but that’s a specific and separate analysis, often related to niche, genre, and/or cast.
  2. What is your film’s budget? How much of that is soft money that does not have to be paid back, or even equity where investors are okay with not being paid back? In other words, what do you need to net to consider the deal a success? Orly, of course, shot for the stars when working on sales for our film, but it was helpful for her to know what was the most modest version of success we could define, so that if we didn’t get a huge worldwide rights offer from a single buyer she could think creatively about how to make us “whole.”
  3. What kind of press and reviews did you receive? We hired a publicist for the Tribeca Film Festival (the incomparable Falco Ink), and it was the best money we could have spent. Falco was able to raise a ton of awareness around the film, making it as “review-proof” as possible (buyers pay attention if they see that press is inclined to write about your film, which in many cases is more important to them than how a trade publication reviews it). We got coverage in New York Magazine, Jezebel, the Washington Post and dozens of other sites, blogs, and magazines. Thankfully, we also got great reviews in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and even won the Albert Maysles Prize for Best New Documentary Director at Tribeca. Regardless of how this affected our distribution offers, we know for sure we can use all this press to reignite excitement for our film even if we self-distribute. On the other hand, if you’re struggling to get attention outside of the trades and your reviews are less than stellar, that’s another reason to lower expectations.
  4. What are your goals, in order of priority? Are you more concerned with recouping your budget? Raising awareness about the issues in your film (impact)? Or gaining exposure for your next project/ongoing career? And don’t say “all three”—or, if you do, list these in priority order and start to think about which one you’re willing to let go.
  5. How long can you spend on this film? If your film is designed for social impact, do you intend to run an impact/grassroots campaign? And can you hire someone to handle that, if you cannot? Do you see your impact campaign working hand in hand with your profit objectives, or separately from them? The longer you can dedicate to staying with your film following its premiere, the more revenue you can squeeze out of it through the educational circuit, transactional sales, and more. But that time comes at a personal cost and you need to ask yourself if it’s worth it to you. Side note: touring with your film and self-distributing are also great ways to stay visible between projects, and could lead to opportunities for future work.
  6. Does your film have sufficient international appeal to attract a worldwide deal or significant territory sales outside of the United States? If you think yes, what’s your evidence for that? Are you being realistic? By the way, feeling strongly that your film has a global appeal (as I do for my film) doesn’t guarantee sales. I believe my film will have strong appeal in the countries where there is a large South Asian diaspora—but many of those territories command pretty small sales. Ask your agent which territories around the world you think your film might do well in, and what kinds of licensing deals those territories tend to offer. It’s a sobering conversation.
  7. Does your film fit into key niches that work well for film festival monetization and robust educational distribution? For example, TFC has great success with LGBTQ, social justice, environmental, Latin American, African American, Women’s issues, mental health. Sports, music, and food-related can work well too.
  8. Does your film, either because of subjects or issues or both, have the ability to command a significant social media following? A “significant” social media following is ideally in the hundreds of thousands or millions of followers, but is at least in the high five figures. We know the last thing you want to think about when you’re trying to lock picture, run a crowdfunding campaign, deal with festival logistics, and all the other stress of preparing for your big debut is social media. But don’t sleep on it. Social media is important not only to show buyers that there is interest in your film, but also ideas on how to position your film and which audiences are engaging with it already. Truth be told, unless you’re in the hundreds of thousands or millions of followers range, social media probably won’t make or break your distribution options, but it can’t hurt. And, in our case, it actually helped us get a lot of interest from educational distributors, who were inspired by the dialogue they saw brewing on our Facebook page.
  9. How likely is your film to get great critic reviews, and thus get a good Rotten Tomatoes score? Yeah, not much you can do to predict this one. However, a good publicist will have relationships with critics who can give you some insight into what the critical reaction to your film might be, before you have to read it in print. They also reach out to press who they think will like your film, keep tabs on reactions during your press and industry screenings, and monitor any press who attend your public screenings. This data is super useful for your sales representatives.
  10. How likely is your film to perform theatrically (knowing that very few do), sell to broadcasters (some do but it’s very competitive), sell to SVOD platforms (as competitive as TV), and sell transactionally on iTunes and other similar services (since so many docs do not demand to be purchased)? While these questions are easy to pose and hard to answer, start by doing realistic comparisons to other films based on the subject, name recognition of filmmakers, subject, budget, festival premiere status, and other factors indicating popularity or lack thereof. Also adjust for industry changes and changes to the market if the film you are comparing to was distributed years before. Furthermore, adjust for changes to platform and broadcaster’s buying habits. Get real data about performance of like-films and adjust for and analyze how much money and what else it took to get there.
  11. Can your film be monetized via merchandise? Not all docs can do this, but it can help generate revenue. So, go for the bulk orders of t-shirts, mugs, and tote bags during your crowdfunding campaign and sell that merch! Even if it just adds up to a few hundred extra dollars, for most people it’s pretty easy to put a few products up on their website.
  12. Does your film lend itself to getting outreach/distribution grants, or corporate sponsorship/underwriting? With the traditional models of both film distribution and advertising breaking down, a new possibility emerges: finding a brand with a similar value set or mission as your film to underwrite some portion of your distribution campaign. I recently spoke to a documentary filmmaker who sold licenses to his film about veterans to a small regional banking chain, who then screened the film in local communities as part of their outreach effort. The bank paid the filmmakers $1000 per license for ten separate licenses without asking them to give up any rights or conflict with any of their other deals—that’s $10,000 with virtually no strings attached. Not bad!

Sadly, Netflix is no longer the blank check it once was (or that I imagined it to be) and the streaming giant is taking fewer and fewer risks on independent films. Thankfully, Amazon is sweeping in to fill the gap, and their most aggressive play has been their Festival Stars program. If you’re lucky enough to premiere in competition at one of the top-tier festivals (Sundance, SXSW, and Tribeca for now, but presumably more to come), then you already have a distribution deal on the table: Amazon will give you a $100,000 non-recoupable licensing fee ($75,000 for documentaries) and a more generous (double) revenue share than usual per hour your film is streamed on their platform for a term of two years. For many independent films, this could already mean recouping a big chunk of your budget. It also provides an important clue as to “what your film is worth to the marketplace”—$100,000 seems to be the benchmark for films that can cross that first hurdle of landing a competition slot at an A-list festival.

I’ll admit, I was a snob about the Amazon deal when I first heard about it. I couldn’t make myself get excited about a deal that was being offered to at least dozen other films, sight unseen, with no guarantee of publicity or marketing. A Facebook post by a fellow filmmaker (who had recent sold her film to a “legit” distributor) blasting the deal as “just a steep and quick path to devalue the film” left me shaken. But again, appearances proved to be deceiving.

I discussed my concerns with Orly, and she helped me see that with so few broadcast and financially meaningful SVOD options for docs, having a guaranteed significant platform deal with a financial commitment and additional revenue share is actually a great thing. Plus, one can build in lots of other distribution around the Amazon deal and end up with as robust a release as ever there could be. Orly says one should treat Amazon as a platform (online store) but as a distributor and that can provide for all the distribution potential. If one does manage to secure an all-rights deal from a “legit” distributor (we won’t name names, but it’s the companies you might see your friends selling their films to), oftentimes that distributor is just taking the Amazon deal on your behalf anyway, and shaving off up to 30% of it for themselves. So the analysis needs to be what is that distributor doing, if anything, to create additional value that merits taking a piece of a deal you can get on your own? Is it that much more money? Is it a commitment to do a significant impactful release? Are the terms sensible in light of the added value and your recoupment needs? Can you accomplish the same via DIY? Perhaps you can, but don’t want to bother. That’s your choice. But know what you are choosing and why.

Independent filmmakers are, yet again, in uncharted territory when it comes to distribution. Small distributors are closing up shop at a rapid pace. Netflix and Hulu are buying less content out of festivals, and creating more of it in house. Amazon’s Festival Stars program was just announced at Sundance this year (2017) and doesn’t launch until next Spring, so the jury is out as to whether it will really be the wonderful opportunity for filmmakers that it claims to be. By this time next year, several dozen films will have inaugurated the program and will be in a position to share their experiences with others. I hope my fellow filmmakers will be willing to do so. Given the sheer variety of films slated to debut on the platform, this data can be our first real chance to answer the question that the funder on the panel I attended refused to: “What is my film worth to the marketplace?”

Orly adds that the lack of transparency is, of course, in great part attributable to the distributors and buyers, who maintain a stranglehold on their data, but it’s also due to filmmakers’ willful blindness and simple unwillingness to share details about their deals in an effort to keep up appearances. That’s totally understandable, but if we can break the cycle of competing with each other and open up our books, we will not only have more leverage in our negotiations with buyers, but will be equipped to make better decisions for our investors and our careers. Knowledge is power, and if we all get real and share, we’ll all be informed to make the best choices we can.

July 5th, 2017

Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, education, Film Festivals, Hulu, International Sales, iTunes, Marketing, Netflix, Publicity, Theatrical

« Previous PageNext Page »