Hootsuite releases two must-read reports

Hootsuite has just released two documents I think you should read.

The first main one, Digital 2020 Global Digital Overview, links to Digital 2020 Global Digital Yearbook, that has summaries for over 200 countries.

“Our report has been a trusted resource for policymakers, journalists, businesses, and NGOs over the last ten years, during which we’ve consistently tracked consumer digital behavior around the world to bring you a comprehensive, scalable, and replicable resource for identifying your audience and building your digital strategies with confidence.”

The insights are fascinating. For instance:

  1. Page 7 states digital stats around the world in 2020. Did you know there are 200 million more cellphones than people on the planet? That almost 60% of us are Internet users?
  2. Page 87 shows absolute growth in Social Media. Did you know India increased 48% last year, adding 130,000,000 users?
  3. Page 166 lists the most-viewed Youtube videos of all time. Did you know that Despacito has over 6.5 billion views?

Fill out a simple form to download your copies today.

My take: my hunch is that Internet use will reach record levels in April 2020.

Pandemic Closes All Cinemas

The COVID-19 pandemic has closed all 165 Cineplex theatres in Canada (as well as Landmark Cinemas and Imagine Cinemas.)

329/365 - empty house.

In the United States, all AMC and Regal theatres have also closed.

The Los Angeles Times reports that:

“AMC Theatres said it would close all of its U.S. locations, starting Tuesday, for six to 12 weeks in response to the pandemic after President Trump declared that people should avoid gatherings of more than 10 people.”

The moves follow widespread orders to close bars and clubs and other places where people gather to socialize.

My take: although the movie exhibition industry has been in decline for the last decade, it only took one week of this pandemic to kill it. Suddenly VOD is an option for new movies as the 90-day theatre window proves impossible. People will be streaming everything for the next two weeks to two months and it’s going to be hard to get them back into the theatres.

In the meantime, here’s something funny to watch:

COVID-19 infects film business

The latest fallout from COVID-19 and China closing almost all of its 70,000 cinemas in January: 007 has decided it’s No Time to Release its latest instalment, No Time to Die, postponing it from April to Thanksgiving.

Elsewhere, Vulture‘s Chris Lee reports that the total fallout “could result in a loss of at least $5 billion from diminished box-office returns.”

He then quotes David Unger, chief executive of Artist International Group:

“Who wants to go to the theater right now? Do you want to go sit in a room with a bunch of people that are coughing? It’s going to change viewing patterns. It’s going to change behavior. It’s going to change the way people consume entertainment. This is where streaming becomes normalized for the world and it’s going to be disastrous for the entire industry.”

Meanwhile, Georg Szalai of the Hollywood Reporter reports that some film studios had their best year ever last year: “Among key trends for 2019, Disney hit an all-time film profit record that many say may stand for years.”

The Netflix insights are huge:

  • 167 million total members
  • 61 million U.S. members
  • 106 million international members
  • 2019 free cash flow losses of $3.1 billion
  • Projected 2020 free cash flow losses of $2.5 billion
  • $15.3 billion spent on programming in 2019
  • CFO Spencer Neumann: “well over 50 percent of our cash spend is on originals.”

My take: COVID-19 has the potential to rewire society completely. Imagine if every cinema had to remove every two out of three seats and every second row. OMG, tickets just became six times more expensive! Is this the push VR has been waiting for?

Stareable wants to help you monetize your web series

Hannah Buczek, asks on Bold, ‘How Can Content Creators Monetize Their Work?

Ajay Kishore, Founder and CEO, explains to Julia Sun and David Grasso that: “Stareable provides tools that help creators build an engaged audience of fans who will pay for bonus or premium features.”

Beyond building the Stack Exchange of web serious, Stareable seems to be having a lot of fun.

They put on a three-day conference and festival each year:

Sign up here.

My take: I’m currently developing a web series, so I’m a potential customer. I realize Stareable is concentrating on web series producers right now but as a content consumer too, I find the website lacking. I wonder if an A or B model would work better: one side for consumers and the other side for producers. Heck, why not just put the producer side behind a log in screen: dangle some success metrics in front of producers and they’ll all sign up. How big is this community of web series creators, and how large is the viewership?

How to make a low, low budget sci-fi feature

Aleem Hossain blogs on No Film School How (and Why) I Made an Indie Sci-Fi Feature Film for $30K.

It’s a fascinating read. His belief is that:

“We should rethink why we are making independent films in the first place, especially indie sci-fi and speculative films. I don’t think we should even be trying to compete with Hollywood. We should be striving to make films that are strikingly different from big-budget films.”

Aleem faced five challenges making After We Leave and solved them creatively. Although he answers them from a sci-fi point of view, they can be extrapolated to indie filmmaking in general.

#1. The Brainstorming Phase: What Are Sci-Fi and Indie Film’s Core Strengths?

“Hollywood is very good at making its kind of movies. Why should we try to compete with them with a lot less money? In my mind, the only reason to make an independent feature film is to create a movie that only you would make. A kind of film that wouldn’t exist if you didn’t exist. I think what independent films can offer are new directions in style, tone, theme, topic, representation, and viewing experiences. They can challenge the mainstream artistically, politically, and narratively.”

#2. World building does not have to be expensive.

Rather than with a VFX-laden long shot, sometimes a world can be built with a carefully composed close up:

“The future version of Los Angeles that I imagine in my film is undergoing severe water shortages. This glass is the only clean water we see in the entire film. Every other time characters drink, they drink dirty water or something other than water. I don’t have a shot of a huge empty reservoir. I don’t have a shot of drones “mining” water from clouds. I have one clear glass of water, provided by the most powerful and richest character in the film… and my main character chugs it down. It cost me nothing. But it’s definitely world building.”

#3. The standard model of film production discourages artistic risk-taking.

Aleem laments, “The system is always telling us to play it safe.”

To counter the “stay on schedule” mantra, he bought their camera gear:

“We could choose to just try one crazy complicated shot, exactly at sunrise, and then we’d all go off to our day jobs. If it didn’t work we could try again the next morning.  There was no downside other than our time… and because we were fitting it in around our existing work and lives. This way of working was, in fact, the thing that convinced collaborators (some long time friends, some new) to work on the film. They all had day jobs that paid way better than I could. The reason they gave up their nights and lunch hours and weekends to work on After We Leave was that I was offering them a chance to try things they normally didn’t get to try. To reach for things in a way they normally didn’t get to.”

This also freed up his actors to ask for extra takes and for his DOP to extend magic hour by shooting at the same time over a number of days.

As to locations:

“I ‘scouted’ for hours on Google Street view looking for rundown and beautifully gritty locations… and then I placed small scenes in each of them. We shot all over Los Angeles. We didn’t get a single permit. We didn’t need to because we didn’t care if we got kicked out of somewhere… it wouldn’t throw off our schedule or make us cut the scene or waste a ton of money. We’d just film it next weekend at a different location. And the truth is, most days we were a crew of three people with a DSLR, a Zoom recorder and a mic, plus one or two actors. We shot in 25 different exterior Los Angeles locations and were approached only once by the police and twice by private security. And in two of three of those times, they weren’t telling us to stop filming… they were making sure we were safe in what they perceived to be a dangerous location.”

#4. VFX don’t have to cost a lot of money, they (just) cost time.

Rotoscoping and motion tracking in Adobe After Effects have improved so much in the last ten years that green screens and locked off cameras are no longer necessary.

See their VFX reel.

#5. There is actually a huge advantage to being micro-budget when you reach the distribution phase.

Aleem realized his advantage was, “I needed to make back less money than other films.”

After being rejected by top film festivals, he found success at niche ones:

“After being rejected by 22 festivals in a row, I got an email from Sci-Fi London raving about my movie. I gave them the world premiere and After We Leave won Best Feature Film there and everything started to change. We went on to Berlin Sci-Fi, Other Worlds, Boston Sci-Fi and won a number of awards and got great reviews.”

Aleem concludes:

“The big lesson I learned is to only do what I felt we could do well and to pick a story that makes use of that. And that’s the irony… by avoiding mimicking the films that try to appeal to huge audiences, I actually created a film that resonated with audiences.”

My take: Lots to take away here. Embrace your limitations. Less money can mean more time. Raise enough to get it in the can. Then raise more to finish it. Use the right festivals to connect with your true audience. Never compromise your vision.

Inside the film festival selection process

Caleb Hammond, writing in MovieMaker, reveals How to Get Your Film Into Festivals.

Illustration by Angela Huang

The article summarizes responses from “a range of festival directors (many with 10-plus years of experience), programmers, and of course, screeners” to a detailed survey.

Having been a screener and member of programming committees for a number of film festivals, I’ll also chip in.

Do screeners watch every minute?

“44 percent of screeners made clear that they watch every submission to completion. Thirty-seven percent said they occasionally fail to finish viewing a submission and only 19 percent said they frequently stop a film submission early.”

I watch every minute, unless a submission is so terrible or clearly outside a festival’s field of interest.

Should my film be long or short?

The consensus is that shorter is better. Remember, the shorter the films, the more that can be programmed.

I agree. I watch hundreds of films so I’d rather watch two shorter films than one longer one. Put another way, a longer film has to be significantly better than two shorter ones to make it.

Will a film festival bend its rules for me?

Do your research and “really know the profile of every festival you consider submitting to.” This way you can save time and money by avoiding submissions to unsuitable festivals.

Make sure you check off every requirement of the festivals you submit to — no exceptions. Bonus: help me make sure your film qualifies if there’s any question about any of the requirements by explaining everything to me in your personalized cover letter.

Will festivals let my bad sound pass?

No. Bad sound is a tip off, like bad acting and bad visuals, of a bad film. Anything sub-standard makes it much tougher to accept a film. Paradoxically, casting a known actor in your film may actually raise the bar for all the other aspects of your film.

I agree. Bad sound is hard to ignore. I would almost suggest doing one or two takes of every scene close-mic’ed without camera to give yourself plenty of sound options in edit (before resorting to ADR.)

Can diversity help my film?

Yes. If two films are tied, the one with more diversity wins.

I look for diversity in both the cast and the crew.

I missed the deadline. Can I submit after the late deadline?

Maybe, but it’s not recommended. Submit as early as possible for a couple of reasons. Earlier submission costs are cheaper than later ones. Plus the later you wait, the greater the chance that a festival has already started to make decisions. Even if they haven’t, your late film is subconsciously judged agains all that have been seen before it.

I advise that you do not send a work in progress because you are asking the festival to make a couple of gambles on you and your film: will you or won’t you finish the film in time and will it or won’t it be better than other finished films that could have been chosen? Better to not rush it and submit next year when the film is completed.

I love these closing words, quoting an anonymous programmer:

“There’s a festival for every film and a film for every festival. Submit to the ones whose vision you agree with and want to support, whether you’re accepted or not.”

My take: Make the best film you can. Know your ideal audience. Research appropriate festivals on FilmFreeway. Offer your film to those festivals for their programs. If your film is selected, congratulations! If it isn’t, feel good in supporting those festivals. Continue to believe in your film and realize it wasn’t a good fit with their programs. Make better films, and repeat this cycle. Nevertheless, if you go through this loop too many times, consider starting your own film festival!

The Truth about Indy Film Distribution in 2020

Naomi McDougall Jones shares on the excellent Seed&Spark What the Joyful Vampire Tour of America Taught Us About Independent Film Today.

Naomi is the writer and one of the producers of Bite Me, a $500,000 subversive romantic comedy about a real-life vampire and the IRS agent who audits her.

They wanted to do distribution differently:

“Our distribution plan was based on two core hypotheses. The first was that, although Hollywood is constantly complaining that people don’t want to see movies in theaters anymore — thanks to Netflix, streaming, having to put on pants to do so, etc — those complaints didn’t jive with our observations about the people around us. In an age where technology is isolating us all ever-more-aggressively, drawing us further into our phones and farther away from each other, we felt that people are actually desperate for excuses to get out of their homes and into community. It isn’t that people don’t want to leave their homes, we figured. It’s simply that you need to give them a better proposition than “pay upwards of $50 for two people to go to a movie theater, interact with no one you didn’t come with, and have no added positive experience above what you would have gotten for the cost of your monthly Netflix subscription at home without having to put on pants.” Our second hypothesis was that, if we did some crazy marketing stunt like, say, travel around the country with the film in an RV for three months, and also put substantial marketing dollars into social media and YouTube ads, that all of that buzz, news, fun and marketing would translate into a larger number of people renting and/or buying the film online.”

The filmmakers are brutally honest with the number of tickets and merchandise they sold in the real world and the digital revenue online.

They thought they’d rake it in online and their real world tour would not amount to much more than a cute publicity stunt.

Good surprise! They grossed $38,000 in ticket sales across 51 screenings, meaning an average of $745 per screen. They also made an additional $9,000 in merchandise sales, for a total of approximately $47,000.

Now, if their online revenue was ten times as much, they’d recoup their film cost.

Bad surprise! Less than 600 people rented or purchased the film online, generating these numbers: $1,821.45 from iTunes, Amazon, and GooglePlay/YouTube combined and an additional $5,522 from Seed&Spark, for a grand total of $7,343.45 in digital revenue.

That’s actually less than their merch.

Along the way, they heard that TVOD is dead: “TVOD sales for everyone have declined 50% year-over-year for the last two years.” Yikes!

Wait, there’s more!

They also made a fascinating 12-part documentary series that follows them across the States as they promote their film and show it to paying audiences. See Prologue, Part1:

My take: Kudos to the Bite Me Team for this unparalleled access. The glimpse into their truth is humbling. Finding your audience is harder than ever; there’s just so much competition for eyeballs. I would actually like to see the documentary series cut into a feature, something that chronicles the wide-eyed optimism of the filmmakers, their journey around the country and the realizations they stumble on. Of course, then they have to take that on a second tour across the continent.

Hollywood tentatively adopts AI prediction tools

Tom Taulli asks in Forbes if Artificial Intelligence (AI) Can Help Make Hollywood Blockbusters?

Artificial Intelligence & AI & Machine Learning

He reports that:

Warner Bros. recently struck a deal with Cinelytic, which has built an AI-infused project management system. It is focused on the green-lighting process, such as by helping to predict the potential profits on new films.”

Cinelytic says users can:

“Gain critical insights into how key talent will increase the chances of success of your project, and by how much. Our proprietary economic scoring system, Cinelytic’s TalentScores™, ranks talent by their economic impact across the film industry, including by media type, genre, and key territories.”

See also:

My take: I’m not sure AI tools will help make better Hollywood films. AI tools analyze past successes and compare new projects against old ones. With this in mind, how can we expect anything but retreads of yesteryear’s blockbusters? More comic book films coming soon.

Online content moderation may lead to PTSD

Casey Newton reports on The Verge that Youtube Moderators Are Being Forced To Sign A Statement Acknowledging The Job Can Give Them PTSD.

“Content moderators for YouTube are being ordered to sign a document acknowledging that performing the job can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). ‘I understand the content I will be reviewing may be disturbing,’ reads the document, which is titled ‘Acknowledgement’ and was distributed to employees using DocuSign. ‘It is possible that reviewing such content may impact my mental health, and it could even lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).'”

This story follows one by Casey in which he chronicles the working conditions of approximately 10,000 online content moderators.

These moderators work as contractors to companies working for Google or Facebook, for instance, and are charged with keeping Youtube or Facebook, for instance, free from copyright infringement and explicit imagery, be that extremist violence, abuse, porn, hate or harassment.

“We are now two years into a great expansion of the content moderation industry. As governments around the world make more demands of tech companies to police their services, tens of thousands of people have signed up for the job. At the same time, we still lack a basic understanding of how the most difficult aspects of this work — removing graphic and disturbing content — affect the people doing it. We know that a subset of people who work in YouTube’s violent extremism queue and similar roles around the world will develop PTSD and related conditions on the job. We don’t know what a safe level of exposure might be.”

The tech companies know some content moderation can be mentally challenging and are investigating tech solutions. This paper describes displaying the images in grey scale or blurring them.

Unfortunately, the only real solution is for people to stop uploading harmful material. Until then, online content moderators run the risk of being hurt.

My take: these contractors police the Internet to keep us safe from harm. In that sense, they are really no different from the fire, police and military services. They should be paid equivalently and have the same health benefits, especially when their work leads to PTSD.

Streaming debate: nostalgia or new?

Philippe Jean Poirier reports for CMF Trends on Streaming Wars: Using Nostalgia as a Weapon.

Nostalgia

He starts by linking to a Wall Street Journal story that reveals Netflix’s top shows from 2018. Surprise: they’re not their new shows:

The Office” and “Friends” are more popular than “Orange is the New Black” or “Ozark“. (Interestingly, neither of these Netflix shows made their 2019 top ten.)

He then lists competing streamers who stole those shows and what Netflix did:

He then quotes vMedia co-founder George Burger:

“You always think you want to watch your favourite shows from 20 years ago, and yet you end up not devoting all that much time to them. When video stores started opening everywhere, I remember thinking: wow, I can catch up with all my favourite old movies. But that feeling doesn’t last. And that’s not a sustainable business model. Eventually, 80 percent of what you found in video stores was less than a month old. Netflix’s move from distribution to a production and distribution model is based on the fact that, once they had demonstrated that there was a business in streaming, they realized they were at the mercy of the studios for content. They anticipated the current trend, where studios want to be their own distributors.”

He concludes, “With the arrival on the market of several new OTT platforms, Netflix’s catalogue has somewhat been depleted. And these new players certainly don’t intend to stick to recycled content. Peacock, HBO Max and Disney+ are all investing massively in the production of original shows.”

My take: The mediascape expands each year, both in terms of content and in terms of outlets for that content. On the other hand are two things that are for the most part finite: individual viewing time and entertainment budgets. This means more content and more outlets will simply be ignored by viewers; the audience must fracture into niches if the smaller outlets are to gain any traction. Nostalgic content may attract an audience to a streaming service but new shows and content will keep them there. So much to see, and so little time! More curation is required.