Green, white, grey or black: what’s the colour of your online media?

I was thinking about strategies for online media dissemination and devised a means of organizing them by colour: green, white, grey and black.

Green is the colour of money — these outlets charge viewers to watch. Think of everything from the VOD pay-per-view titles on your cable provider to iTunes to Vimeo on DemandReelhouse and many others. Can I Stream.it makes it easy to find any movie your want to stream and pay for, in the U.S.

White, on the other hand, is the absence of green and in this case represents free access to media. Think Youtube, Crackle, Open Culture, the Internet Archive and many others. (Let’s ignore user-generated video on Facebook or Vine or Periscope or Instagram.)

Grey is a mixture of white and green or white and black and stands for three things:

  1. Free behind a pay wall. Think SVOD like Netflix and Fandor and CraveTV and showmi in Canada. Yes, hopefully there’s a bit of money heading your way here, so, greenish grey, perhaps?
  2. Apps for IP TV, perhaps using Chromecast.
  3. API hacks that create meta-versions of otherwise free but hidden media. Think VineViewer.co and OnPeriscope.com.

Black represents illegal offerings. I avoid these so I can’t speak to them but we’ve all heard the industry’s warnings about the vast revenue they lose to pirates.  Think torrents.

So what’s your strategy?

Give it all away on white sites? Mirror the old world traditional media model and stick to green and grey sites?

You won’t be able to make money on all these platforms but independent media producers should be able to approach some of these outlets directly. The larger ones will require an aggregator.

Try to avoid the black sites, unless that figures into your strategy. Give away all your BTS material and point viewers to your pay site?

My take: I think it would be great to create an infographic on this topic! Suggestions for other outlets appreciated.

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.

The CBC joins with Fullscreen

“Evolve or die,” says the CBC‘s executive director of multi-platform media sales Mary Kreuck, when it comes to digital strategies.

To that end, on September 23, 2015, the CBC announced a partnership with Fullscreen, one of the largest Youtube multi-channel networks. As an MCN, Fullscreen provides services to its 70,000 individual creators, such as Rooster Teeth, Fine Brothers Entertainment and shane.

The CBC | Fullscreen Creator Network will be a new way for advertisers to connect with millennial audiences. As Mary said,

“What are we offering? Custom content created for your brands, developed with your brand, its use by key influencers, and amplified across multi-media. So the result then is endless possibilities in a safe and proven environment.”

Read their media releases here and here.

My take: the CBC wants to remain relevant to their advertisers and to Canadian millennials. Recognizing that they have little expertise in the mobile video arena (and other online outlets such as Twitter, Snapchat, Vine, Instagram, etc.) they are partnering with Fullscreen and inserting themselves as an ‘agent’ for all of Fullscreen’s Canadian creators. In addition, the CBC might be hoping to “up-level” at least one of the Canadian Youtubers to network television. (Not sure, though, how this fits into Fullscreen’s plans to launch a mobile SVOD service later this year.) I’ve got to admit, I’m a little confused about what’s in this for the Canadian-based creators in Fullscreen’s stable. Maybe more subscribers? The Internet sort of erases distance and borders, so nationality is just not a big factor to them.

Can the music industry give the film industry any pointers?

Can the music industry give the film industry any pointers when it comes to living in a digital age? For years, it’s needed to deal with piracy on one hand and new methods of dissemination on the other.

Andrew Powell-Morse of SeatSmart asks the question, “Where is the money supposed to come from to keep the lights on?” in its blog post Does The Death Of Album Revenue Spell The End For Rock Stars As We Know Them? (Link doesn’t work in Safari.)

Using colourful line and bubble charts, he graphs:

  • Top Tour Revenue vs. Top Album Revenue
  • Tours vs. Album Revenue by Decade
  • Total Tour Ticket Sales vs. Total Album Sales
  • Tickets vs. Albums Sold by Decade
  • Top Album Revenue & Sales Over Time
  • Top Tours: Revenue & Attendance over Time
  • Sum Revenue of Top Album Artists
  • Sum Revenue of Top Touring Artisits

Looking at revenue only:

“Album revenue is plummeting while tours are steadily bringing more. However, those rising tour revenues don’t even come close to compensating for what’s been lost in album sales.”

One thing the stats reveal is that:

“…both album and ticket sales are down — concert ticket prices are on the rise while the average price of an album has decreased from almost $19 in the 1980s to just over $13 today. This does a lot to explain the divergence here — each concert ticket sold is bringing a greater return over time while each album sold is bringing a declining return.”

Andrew concludes:

“While album sales are comparatively evenly distributed, tour revenue gets sucked up by a smaller number of huge acts. This points to serious concerns over an industry becoming more and more reliant on tours to fund itself. Concert ticket sales are not going to save the music industry. They may provide some artists with good revenue streams to balance lower album sales, but they don’t work equally well for everyone.”

What are the parallels with the film industry? Perhaps DVDs equate with albums and theatrical releases equate to tours. Take a look a this PWC infographic of media revenue trends. Although it shows most trends up, “Physical Home Video” is trending down.

My take: Maybe independents need to buck the trend. If vinyl is making a comeback, does that mean indie film should embrace DVDs again?

VOD Strategies

The excellent CMF Trends has released a post on How To Make Money With Video On Demand by Renee Robinson.

In it, we learn the VOD marketplace is projected to more than double in the next five years to over $60 billion.

Three models have emerged:

  • TVOD, or Transactional Video On Demand
  • SVOD, or Subscription Video On Demand
  • AVOD, or Advertising-based Video On Demand

Think iTunes, Netflix and YouTube. Or Vimeo On Demand, showmi and Crackle.

Renee discusses the models in detail, including figures for reference.

She concludes:

“As a rights holder, there is nothing stopping you from utilizing as many VOD models as possible, except for any prior agreements that may withhold specific rights. Inform yourself before agreeing on the method of delivery, device compatibility, window compression and how revenue is defined. The ability to exploit each non-exclusive model can become a small but steadily monetized stream in this new digital licensing ecosystem.”

My take: fascinating reading! The xVOD marketplace is crowded with no clear winners — yet. Interesting that the TVOD model mimics the existing theatrical model, the SVOD model mimics current premium TV and the AVOD model mimics free TV. One day this will all settle out. But until then every filmmaker needs to navigate this marketplace by themselves.

Some hard numbers on film distribution

Jon Reiss recently published two posts on Filmmaker Magazine entitled, “Distribution Transparency: Four Filmmakers Reveal Their Distribution Numbers” Parts One and Two.

He interviews filmmakers from four projects:

  • Neil Berkeley (Director of Beauty Is ‘Embarrassing & Harmontown’)
  • Judy Chaikin (Director of ‘The Girls in the Band’)
  • Paco de Onís (Executive Director of Skylight Films), and
  • Jon Betz (Producer of ‘Queen of the Sun’)

It turns out that monetizing your film is long and hard work.

The takeaways?

“Knowing your goals is essential to creating a release strategy.
Know your audience and target your release to where they are; offer your audience products (event, digital or merchandise) that are interesting to them.
Split rights have a greater advantage of control and profit for filmmakers over all rights deals.
Work with distribution partners to get films on major platforms.
Engaging in distribution and marketing is very hard work and generally involves a staff or at least someone full time managing the process.
Email lists are gold – develop them constantly.
Events motivate people to go to theaters.
Events are excellent ways to connect with audience.
Event theatrical is a good/great way to promote ancillary sales.
It is possible to break even or even make a little money from an event theatrical release.
If you can, carve out direct-to-fan sales since this will give you the following advantages:
* Higher profit margin per purchase.
* Audience data for future projects
* Ability to package the film with merchandise and extra content for higher price points or to make purchasing direct to fan more attractive.
Most importantly, focus on long-term audience development since it is possible to transition audiences from one project to another if you reward them for their continued interest and keep them engaged.”

My take: fascinating reading. Hard numbers are hard to find.

Youtube is Ten!

Youtube is ten years old this week.

It’s first video was posted on April 23, 2005, and since then Me at the zoo has been seen more than 22 million times, even though the clip is a mere 18 seconds long.

Remember that in 2005, most people were still using dial-up connections to access the Internet. Yet to come were Twitter, Facebook, smartphones, broadband access and streaming Netflix.

Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim registered youtube.com on February 14, 2005. Twenty-one months later Google bought the site for $1.65 billion in stock.

In 2011 Youtube revealed that 99% of views are generated by 30% of the hosted videos. Today, over 300 hours of video are uploaded every minute.

In fact, Variety reported last year that American teens idolize Youtubers even more than Hollywood celebrities.

My take: Internet video has made incredible strides in the last ten years. I wonder how things will change in the next ten years. Any thoughts?

Tips for your Indie Film Release

The recent SXSW panel Hacking Technology For Your Indie Film Release asked the question:

“As new technologies and distribution approaches continue to disrupt conventional release windows, funding cycles, and acquisition deals, how do indie filmmakers navigate this shifting landscape while balancing audience engagement and revenue?”

The Sundance Institute‘s #ArtistServices presented and has since released 23 Hacks for your Indie Film Release — “what it takes to get your film seen in an overcrowded marketplace by using technology as your secret weapon.”

Here they are:

  1. Schedule pre-order windows
  2. Avoid December and February releases
  3. Purchase a specific E&O policy that fits your film release plans
  4. Don’t limit your theatrical screenings to only Art House Theatres
  5. Upload final DCP-formatted trailers on Dropbox or G Drive
  6. Do NOT purchase KDMs
  7. $250 vs 35% — what you charge exhibitors
  8. Beware the “Virtual Print Fee”
  9. All screenings are “theatrical”
  10. Be frugal when printing one-sheets
  11. Small Size Matters Too: consider the thumbnail
  12. Don’t worry about print ads
  13. Harness internet trends
  14. Email subject lines matter
  15. Tweet at people who just tweeted
  16. Email lists are still the gold
  17. Upload content natively to each social platform
  18. Better Bundle for Bigger Bucks
  19. Private Vimeo Screeners
  20. Growth hack your backer rewards
  21. Carve out rights to do traditional digital and direct-to-fan deals on your own
  22. Ask distributors about their digital economics
  23. Pay for a quality closed caption file

Read the article for full details.

My take: as you fashion your digital distribution strategy, keep these ideas in mind.

Knowing your audience is key to success with your indie project

Even ten years ago, ‘show business’ was highly organized. See this excellent report by Strategy Analytics.

But that model has been challenged by the addition of millions of screens, many of which you carry around as phones, tablets and laptops; the explosion of content, made possible by plunging production costs; and the rise of the Internet, acting as the conduit between viewer and media.

Very simplistically, the old, analogue, model was:

  1. Make the movie
  2. Sell your movie to a distributor
  3. Hand it over so they can exploit it in every market through each window.

There is no one new model: everyone is coming up with their own strategy. It’s still the Wild West. What might work for one film won’t necessarily work for the next.

I believe the key elements are: the Internet, content want to be free, people will reward (pay for) excellent content, video, mobile, watch whatever whenever, and on and on.

One major difference with the new model is that there is no middle man required any more.

Very simplistically, the new, digital, model is:

  1. Make the movie
  2. Exploit the movie.

The key for me is ‘Audience’ — you want to be as close to your audience as possible. You need to involve them in the project’s journey. The thinking here is the more involved they are, the more invested they are and the greater the chance they will support the project. Support is one or all of: talk about it, invest in it, share about it, rent/buy it.

Who is your audience?

Once you know that you can implement this plan:

MK’s Marketing Plan: use Crowd Funding and Web Presence to connect Audience with Release Platforms.

Use Crowd Funding to build awareness: it’s not about the money, it’s about making pre-sales to your audience: make the $10 reward a film viewing. So you might have a ridiculously low goal and then some stretch goals. The real goal is to sign up fans; any money you make is pure bonus. (You should not count on crowd funding to raise your production budget — make it low-to-no-budget so lack money can’t stop you.)

Create a Web Presence: your project needs an online identity. Website, Facebook page, Youtube/Vimeo space, Twitter feed. Again to attract fans. To disseminate news. To show your crowd funding video, behind the scenes videos, etc.

Choose your Release Platforms: the goal is to make enough more to make your next film so you need both SVOD (think Netflix) and VOD (think iTunes) platforms.

Indie filmmaker Douglas Horn has researched this and chose IndieFlix for the curated browsing space and ReelHouse for a rental/sales platform.

Two last thoughts: theatrical and festivals.

The only thing you could consider with Theatrical is to “four wall” the project if you have a niche audience. If you have a distinct, built-in audience, you could rent a theatre and market directly to them. 100 people at $10 each = $1000, less cost of theatre. See TUGG for a crowd sourced pull theatrical strategy.

Festivals — I have to admit I’m not a big fan. You can spend a lot of time and money submitting. For what? Unless you get into the big ones, maybe a hundred people show up on a Friday afternoon and you win an award. That’s the promise. I think in the beginning your time is better spent working your Marketing Plan. Once you get the ball rolling, festivals will take more notice and then you can get into bigger ones. But thinking festivals will get the ball rolling for you is dreaming, IMHO.

My take: Mark Duplass begs to differ. At SXSW he says submit to every festival under the sun. I think festivals should only be a part of your marketing strategy.

The best summary of the mediascape to date

The excellent CMF Trends has released another excellent white paper: Content Everywhere 2: Securing Canada’s Place in the Digital Future by the Canadian Media Production Association.

The 33-page report focusses on developments in the ‘linear, original digital content space’ in Canada, the US and the UK.

With facts and figures, it outlines the ‘videofication’ of the Internet:

“CISCO predicts that video traffic will be 79% of all consumer Internet traffic in 2018, up from 66% in 2013. Internet video is growing at a rapid pace, increasing fourfold by 2018 and consumer VOD traffic will double by 2018. For example, the amount of VOD traffic by 2018 will be equivalent to six billion DVDs per month.”

The report next analyzes the SVOD trend, OTT original content, nimble Internet successes and old media forays.

Case studies from all three countries follow.

One conclusion:

“The biggest obstacle is discoverability in a crowded marketplace –- and the only way to address this challenge is to produce a show that you know has an audience.”

The report closes with this summary of common characteristics of digital-first content across all markets:

  • Global, universal stories
  • Pre-existing and demonstrable digital audience
  • Underserved audiences (in traditional media)
  • Unique creative, perhaps unsuited to traditional media
  • Creative appealing to younger digital audiences
  • Premium talent or ‘event’ programming
  • ‘Digital native’ skills (social media, community building experience)
  • Transmedia competency to market and support content

My take: worth the time to read! Excellent insights and case studies. The takeaway is that you no longer make something for a comissioner/distributor, you make it for your audience. BONUS: email addresses of Digital-First Buyers in Canada, the UK and the US!