Avi Delivers!

Within the next week, Avi Federgreen and IndieCan will unspool five new Canadian feature films in theatres in Toronto, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Regina, Halifax and Moncton.

The films are:

They are some of the results of Federgreen’s IndieCan10K project. Along with executive producers in each province, Avi mentored emerging filmmakers as they created their first features — as long as they kept the budgets under $10,000.

As quoted on First Weekend Club, Federgreen says:

“I believe initiatives like INDIECAN10K are imperative to the success and survival of the Canadian film industry, which is facing increasingly difficult parameters for young filmmakers. We need to encourage emerging filmmakers in Canada to get out there and make their first feature, and we need to show them they can make a great film for a very low budget. The filmmakers that participated in the INDIECAN10K initiative are all amazing, passionate and creative people who deserved a chance to make their first feature and I think they all deserve all the success in the world not only for their INDIECAN10K films but their next films moving forward. I am super proud of all of them!”

My take: Telefilm take note! I love your microbudget initiative, but I firmly believe $100K is too much for first-time feature filmmakers. Ingrid Veninger ($1K) and Avi Federgreen ($10K) prove it. My modest suggestion: reserve the $100K money for second-time feature filmmakers. I guarantee the results will warrant it — let emerging filmmakers scrape up just enough cash to make their first features and, more importantly, make all their mistakes making their first features. Their second features (if they survive to do it again) are where you want to invest.

Writers & Filmmakers Green-lights Short Film Competition

I blogged about Jonathan Krimer’s Writers & Filmmakers a year ago and now it looks like the short film competition is about to be launched.

The funding model is a crowd-sourced meritocracy: online writers select a worthy filmmaker and similarly online filmmakers select the most engaging scripts. Entry fees pay the winners for the script and to make the film.

My take: if you haven’t entered and paid yet, do it now! I will publish numbers next week — all I can say today is that there are twice as many writers as filmmakers signed up. And your odds are much, much better than originally planned.

Real world budget numbers of an indie feature

As teams around Canada put the finishing touches on their first feature pitches for round one of Telefilm’s micro-budget program, I thought it would be instructive to look into some real world budget numbers for an indie feature.

Stephen Follows did just that for the UK independent feature Papadopoulos & Sons. See his long post.

The budget for the 24-day shoot in London was £825,000, fully financed by the film’s first-time producer/director Marcus Markou. That’s approximately $1,350,000 in 2013 dollars. (In other words, skimpy but still about ten times a micro-budget.)

Here’s the breakdown:

£ 0,775 Story, Rights & Continuity
£91,046 Cast
£19,014 Supporting Artists
£90,332 Production Staff
£93,245 Art Department
£32,070 Wardrobe
£16,782 Make-up/Hair
£53,371 Electrical
£58,580 Camera
£16,882 Sound
£77,918 Travel/Transportation
£28,670 Hotel/Living
£70,111 Location
£27,343 Overtime/2nd Camera
£ 0,482 Digital Stock & Transfers
£25,507 Music
£83,929 Post-Production
£ 9,307 Insurance
£ 2,556 Legal & Clearances
£ 7,705 General Expenses
£ 2,900 Publicity
£ 0,750 PACT & Training Levy
£15,947 Fringes

Once the film was made, Marcus moved on to distribution. (A lot of indie films follow this formula, with no pre-sales up front. This puts them in a weaker position than if they had some guaranteed revenue.)

A producer’s representative negotiated deals for Greece, Germany and airlines.

The film played four festivals: the Dinard British Film Festival, the Thessaloniki Film Festival, the Palm Springs Film Festival and the Seattle International Film Festival, and also screened at the European Parliament.

“By this point, the film had a German, Greek and airline deal but was still lacking a UK distributor. Marcus is not someone who gives up easily, and so he turned to self-distribution. Via Miracle Communications, Marcus struck a deal with Cineworld cinemas which placed the film in 13 screens for a week. Marcus identified Greek communities throughout the UK by looking for Greek Orthodox churches. If there was a church, he’d target the local community, using a variety of off- and on-line media.”

The cost of that was £35,525, which earned him £45,601 — a profit of only £10,000.

His TV deal with the BBC earned him five times as much: £50,000.

“The biggest cheque Marcus received was from the UK taxman, in the form of his rebate for the UK film tax credit. If your film is certified as officially British then the tax credit will give you 20% cash back on the money you spent in the UK on certain costs. The eligible costs are confined to activities within pre-production, production and post-production; meaning that all the money Marcus spent on distribution, exhibition and marketing are not included in the calculation. In the case of Papadopoulos & Sons, the UK film tax credit came to £156,000, or 19.1% of their overall production budget.”

The German TV deal netted Marcus £36,072.

VOD sales earned almost £35,000, the lion’s share of that from Netflix.

“The Netflix deal is for the UK and America and the gross is around £15,000 per year for a two year deal. The sales agent takes 15% and the aggregator takes a further 15%, leaving Marcus with 70% of the gross.”

In total the film earned £399,055 in two years — less than half of its cost:

£158,000 UK tax credit
£88,259 TV
£45,601 UK theatrical
£34,942 VOD
£32,667 Airline
£15,594 Germany theatrical
£12,753 Greece
£ 9,374 DVD
£ 1,131 US screening
£ 0,459 UK screening
£ 0,275 Speaking fees

However, Marcus has a long-term vision and says of the venture:

“Think of this as a long-term investment. The capital is sunk up front. After a couple of years I am 40% recouped. The hope is that after 10 years I will be fully recouped. But because of the strength of Netflix and BBC it’s clear this film will have a long shelf life. In year 11, that means every penny that comes in will be PROFIT! Think about it. If in year 11, I am making £25k per year that is £25k per annum with NO COST. This is why catalogues of old films are so valuable. Because if you have 20 films like this, making £25k per annum with no costs… well, you can do the maths. You must not underestimate the long-term value of a movie once its sunk capital has been recouped. In the West End a musical will have to run for two years before it’s profitable. Most never get to the two year mark. With a movie, if you have a universal story that has a long shelf life, you can be collecting payments for 20 or 30 years. So I would always argue that this is a long haul investment. If I took the same £1m and put it in a bank, you may find that after 20 years Papadopoulos has out performed on a return many times over. This is the recoupment stage but it is also still selling – e.g. the US DVD and possible impact of Netflix rolling out across multiple territories. You say: existing deals MAY continue to pay out. They WILL continue to pay out because I get paid quarterly and for DVD, VOD, Netflix etc. Not in advance. So many deals are not completed yet (e.g. Netflix) so it’s not a MAY it is a WILL.”

Stephen concludes with this advice for indie filmmakers:

  1. Self distribution is not easy.
  2. Who you know, helps.
  3. The cost of deliverables adds up.
  4. Soft money is vital for survival.
  5. The publicly available data can be wrong or incomplete.
  6. Research your marketplace.

My take: There are many take-aways here. Tax credits may be the biggest source of revenue for your film. TV revenue may double theatrical. VOD revenue may soon eclipse theatrical. Be creative in identifying your audience — I love that Marcus used Greek Orthodox churches to pinpoint his target audience.

Bread for Canadian Content

Stream Daily recently posted Funding for Content Creation: Canada.

It lists four funding models:

  1. Direct public funding, such as cultural programs
  2. Indirect public funding, such as tax benefits
  3. Industry funding, such as taxation and redistribution
  4. Private funding, such as sponsorship, crowd-funding and personal loans

The best insight is provided by Andra Sheffer, CEO of the Independent Production Fund and the Cogeco Fund:

“Producers typically would have considered their primary target to be the end broadcaster — in effect, they were business-to-business companies. Now, with the reduction of linear broadcaster participation (which, traditionally, handled the marketing efforts), more emphasis needs to be placed on connecting with the end-audience. This means, producers need to do a better job at identifying who exactly will be consuming their content, and how best to engage with them in that pursuit. That can mean anything from more social media interaction, the ability for fans to influence storylines, or a better understanding of which platforms the intended audience is actually watching.”

My take: well said! To use a sandwich analogy, the old model was open-faced — a slice of pre-production with a generous amount of production on top. Your commissioner paid you before and while you made them this sandwich. The new model is that plus another super-slice of marketing and monefication on top. Note that it takes twice as long to make this sandwich — and you might not have any buyers lined up yet.

Can Web Series catch on?

Canada is betting web series will catch on.

On Screen Manitoba reports on a new web series development opportunity and lists web series festivals in Canada and abroad.

Cogeco is piloting a new development program for “Digital Drama Series.” Apply for $10,000 with your mentor to become pitch-ready. They are betting big:

“The Development and Packaging Mentorship Program is designed to fill the funding gap in the digital production industry in Canada by encouraging producers of web drama series to be “pitch ready” in order to attract distribution, platforms, talent and production financing. This pilot project will replace the Cogeco Fund’s existing television Development, Pre-development and Corporate Feature Film Development funding programs in 2015/16.”

The Independent Production Fund also lists the best of Canadian web series.

Netflix’s House of Cards and Orange is the New Black appear on Wikipedia’s list of web series, however, I think this is inaccurate due to their length and similarity to premium cable TV fare.

Got a web series or other web content? Buffer has a guide to promotion/distribution you might find helpful.

My take: my favourite web series is Jerry Seinfeld‘s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee on Sony’s Crackle app, which I Chromecast to my TV. Currently, I don’t watch anything on mobile or the web. I did like The Guild which I had heard about but didn’t watch until showing up on Netflix. I do remember the first episode of Red vs. Blue, but not as a web series — rather as one of the first examples of machinima.

West-coast TV and film writers earn over $1 billion in 2014

Variety reports that motion picture writer earnings are down, whereas TV writer earnings are up for 2014:

“Hollywood screenwriter earnings slid 5.4% last year to $313.9 million — the fifth straight year of decline — while TV writing earnings rose 2.3% to $725.6 million, according to the Writers Guild of America West…. A total of 3,888 writers reported TV earnings, a gain of 39 slots. Feature film employment fell 5.6% to 1,556 writers, or 96 fewer than in 2013.”

Note that this totals over $1 billion and includes almost $400 million for residuals:

“The WGA West, which has about 8,000 members, reported that residuals surged 2.5% to a record high of $383.7 million with gains of 4.8% in TV to $245.4 million while sliding 1.5% in features to $138.3 million. But the five-year comparisons show that film has been flat while TV has been surging. Film residuals are up 2.8% since 2009 while TV has gained 60.4% since 2008.”

No word on what the WGA East writers earned in 2014.

See the WGA Schedule of Minimums.

My take: TV writing seems to earn twice as much as film work, even though film pays more. I think that’s because there are just so many more TV episodes to write. One of the takeaways for me is to learn just how few professional media writers there are actually writing.

Telefilm Micro-Budget Feature Winners Announced

Telefilm Canada has revealed the 2015 finalists of its wonderful Micro-Budget Feature Production Program.

In addition, Telefilm announced that the Talent Fund will subsidize the program. This is great news as it assures stable funding for the near future:

“The Fund has raised over $15 million to date from companies, foundations and individuals. The money will be invested over a period of seven years. Sixty percent of the Micro-Budget Production Program will be financed by the Talent Fund.”

Fifteen teams now negotiate with Telefilm for $100K+ in financing for their projects.

“This is the third annual round of projects in the Micro-Budget Production Program, which supports emerging filmmakers seeking to produce their first feature-length films, with emphasis on the use of digital platforms and developing their potential for distribution and audience engagement.”

I notice that this year most of the projects came through film schools rather than film co-ops as in the past.

Future applicants should note an innovative promotion and digital distribution plan is critical:

identify the target audience;
identify the goals for audience reach and engagement;
describe the release strategy;
identify the digital platform(s) on which the main distribution of the project will be made;
describe how the project will be promoted on the chosen platforms;
enumerate the distribution and/or promotion partners that will be pursued;
provide the budget for the promotion and distribution plan;
add any other information deemed important regarding the promotion and distribution plan

My take: this remains the best way to fund your first feature in Canada. Telefilm is rightly proud to have brought 37 features into being in the last three years.

One of the best reasons to make a short film

Nathalie Sejean just posted a fascinating post on her excellent site, Mentorless.com titled To Short or Not to Short? 20 Filmmakers Who Successfully Transitioned from Short to Feature.

In it she lists twenty filmmakers from George Lucas (THX-1138) to Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) who graduated from shorts to features.

See the wonderful infographic.

Canadian filmmakers interested in this path should apply to Bell Media‘s Shorts-to-Features Program right away — the deadline is in two days!

My take: I think this is a good strategy. Particularly because we live in such a visually-dominant age, the more you can show of your storyverse to your potential fans and backers, the better. I lean towards reworking one or two scenes from your feature as a stand-alone short — now you’ve got a film and footage to cut into your crowd-finding pitch video.

Five Tips for the $500 Feature

I recently read Scott McMahon‘s post 5 Tips To Make Your Independent Film More Viable with interest.

He believes that as an indie filmmaker you should:

  1. Do what you love.
  2. Keep it cheap.
  3. Offer value.
  4. Be specific.
  5. Make what Hollywood will not make.

To back up his beliefs, he made a feature for $500 using what he calls Resource Filmmaking.

I followed up with Scott via email:

Why did you want to make ‘THE CUBE’?

“I went to film school, made a lot of awful short films; but one that was half-way decent. Good enough to land a job at Sony PlayStation. I was there for 12 years and ran the Cinematic Department. When that gig ended, I did what any smart person would do when the economy is tanking — make an independent film! After being disillusioned by the traditional way things were being done, I spent the next seven years trying to answer this basic question: ‘If films can be sold online, then how do successful entrepreneurs sell things online?’ I was used to making things in a big playground, spoiled by PlayStation, but I knew there could be a way to make a really small feature film… I just didn’t have a story to tell. Until one day, I did. ‘THE CUBE’ was made because it was a story that I could film and make in my own home and around my full-time job. ‘THE CUBE’ was made for $500 with no crew. It wasn’t planned that way, but my lead actress had a limited window to make the film, so I just redesigned my shot lists to use more static shots than I had originally planned.

A year and a half later, are you in profit?

“I made ‘THE CUBE’ all wrong. It’s a film with no stars, a genre that is not clearly identified, and I built no audience awareness for it. With that said, I knew things would be CHEAP and SLOW. However, I have made money between the theatrical premiere and Electronic Sell Through (EST) sales. So, in a way, you can say I’m a successful filmmaker because I made a film for a set budget and not only made my money back, but made a little profit as well.”

What’s your ROI?

“The easiest way to determine ROI for any über independent filmmaker selling their film directly online is to use the conversion rate of 1%. This means, that if your film gets 1,000 trailer views, then about 1% of viewers will actually pay for your film. 1% of 1,000 views equals 10 sales transactions. 10 x $5 rental price = $50 in sales. You can read more about this 1% conversion rate in a guest blog post I wrote on Ted Hope’s blog. My overall trailer views have been around 5,500. With a 1% conversion rate, I’ve made about 55 sales transactions at around $10 a transaction. That’s about $550 in sales. Adding in the profit made on the local theatrical premiere of about $180, ‘THE CUBE’ has pulled in about $730. Laughable, I know… but it was always designed this way. That’s why I made sure the film was made for so cheap. Now, the cool thing is that I plan on relaunching this film again, with a whole new marketing campaign and targeting an audience who are NOT other filmmakers. I’ll report back on this experiment later in the year to share those results too. The great thing about owning the license to my own IP, I can repackage it, relaunch it, and resell it in anyway I feel will work. So, I still may make more money in the future.”

Do you have another feature in development and what’s the budget?

“‘THE CUBE’ was always designed as a small film for me… and to be used as an experiment to see what works and what doesn’t work when selling a film product online. With my next feature film, I’m trying to apply all the things that should have been done the first time around. This particular film is in the straight up scary movie genre. The budget is targeted at another $500. Why? I’m very keen on trying to get better at making feature films in this budget range and test my storytelling skills as much as possible. I believe one day, someone is going to make a little film for $100 and sell it directly online to an audience and make a million. Remember the iPhone app boom, when a single programmer could make a ‘fart’ app, sell it for $0.99 and make a million? Who’s to say this can’t happen to a filmmaker? Once it does, then the entire indie film industry will turn its head and say, ‘Ok, let’s do it like that.’ Anyway, that’s where my interests lie. When the normal convention is to think that we should up the budget and go bigger… I want to go even smaller.”

What’s the one piece of advice you’d like indie filmmakers to follow?

“From all the work I’ve done over at FilmTrooper.com, where I focus on trying to help filmmakers become entrepreneurs, this is the one thing that stands out for me: Filmmakers should ‘let go’ of their ego and surrender their talents to SERVE a group of people who they have determined to be their IDEAL FANS. Putting yourself in a place where you are SERVING others will give you greater joy and fulfillment… more so than any award can ever give.”

My take: thanks, Scott, for sharing. I also think smaller budgets force filmmakers to come up with creative solutions to challenges, rather than just throwing money at ‘problems.’ A $500 budget certainly enforces some creative discipline — Ingrid Veninger in Toronto raises the bar to $1000.

Is it Crowd-funding or Crowd-finding?

Nathalie Sejean of Mentorless.com recently blogged that We Are All Unique, But We Are Not Special (or Why We Should Stop Asking for Ridiculously High Amount of Money from Potential Backers to Let Them See Our Film).

She argues that:

“Setting $50 as an entry point to see your film in a crowdfunding campaign is neither okay nor a good idea.”

She discusses the Established System and the emerging Neo-System.

In the Established System you needed to convince FINancers that you were the right person to make the project and that it would make a profit.

Whereas, in the Neo-System, you need to convince people to become FANancers.

“In the Neo-System, you don’t need to convince people that you can do the job, they assume you can do it, you just need to convince them your story is worth seeing the light of day. People don’t give money to our projects because they want to make more money (not yet at least). They don’t care if our film  makes big bucks. Honestly, they don’t even care if it hits theatres. In the Neo-System, the first thing backers care about is seeing our film. Within the Neo-System, our story matters more than we do.”

She wants filmmakers to make sure they don’t mistake FANancers as FINancers.

“Why ask for 4 or 5 times what someone would pay at the theater to give them the “privilege” to see our film? By doing that, we are sending the wrong message. We are telling people that they don’t deserve to watch our film unless they can pay what is essentially five months on Netflix. We are telling people that we are special.”

My take: I really like Nathalie’s insights into crowd-funding. The whole article is worth reading.