Category Archives: The Mediascape

Brand Programming

Posted on by
Reply

In a new series of videos, Zacuto Producer/Director Steve Weiss looks into the future and sees a new funding model emerging (skip ahead to 3:00 if you’re short on time):

“I think that when cable dies, which is going to happen in the next five or six years, that companies—Ford will have their own shows, Target will have their own shows. Amazon has their own shows!”

I think he’s on to something.

We can all agree making movies costs money. The question is, “Who’s paying?”

There are really only two ways to pay for the media you watch. Either you pay directly (through ticket purchases or Cable TV subscriptions, etc.), or someone else pays. And that someone else is usually Advertisers.

The problem is that Google and Facebook have disrupted the Ad Business and now take the lion’s share of the global ad spend.

The recent, pre-Internet televison model was that TV Networks (the Gatekeepers) would contract producers to make shows. How did the Gatekeepers get paid? By selling ads. This situation supported Ad Agencies and lots of Professionals to make and place those ads.

The Brand’s message was intermediated by the Ad Agency and then the TV Networks. And the shows were somewhat entertaining, if you just ignored the commercials.

The Digital Revolution (which lowered production costs and correspondingly increased content) now allows the direct delivery of both content and advertising to viewers, bypassing the Gatekeepers.

I think the real problem remains: people hate commercials that too often interrupt or otherwise annoy them.

So what if Brands worked directly with Professionals on Programming, not Advertising?

This is what Weiss is getting at, I think.

Cases in point: Red Bull TV and BMW Films. The key is to align the brand with the content: for Red Bull it’s youth and adrenaline, for BMW it’s cars, class and action.

I think this is a new frontier: local businesses working with local filmmakers to produce mutually thematic content. Shout out to Justus Lowry who is doing something very similar in a documentary vein for culinary culture here in Victoria, BC.

I hate to call this Sponsored Content. Even Brand TV misses out on the synergy I envision. Brand Programming? Can you think of a better label?

My take: This kinda harkens back to the days of the TV Soaps, you know.

IMAX to show less 3D

Posted on by
Reply

As reported on The Wrap, IMAX Entertainment CEO Greg Foster said on a recent conference call that they will be cutting back on 3D releases in order to boost profits.

“We’re looking forward to playing fewer 3-D versions of films and more 2-D versions.”

He added:

“It’s worth noting ‘Dunkirk’ was showing exclusively in 2-D, which consumers have shown a strong preference for.”

For instance, Blade Runner 2049 will be shown in 2D, even though a 3D version will be available elsewhere.

My take: it’s smart for a large company like IMAX to mine their big data to gauge consumer interest in 3D versus 2D. The conclusion seems to be that more and more moviegoers would rather not wear 3D glasses when watching large-scale movies. Nevertheless, I still believe when it comes to small-scale individual VR watching, people will choose 3D180 over 360.

Google and Facebook take lion’s share of global advertising

Posted on by
Reply

CC BY-SA 3.0 Nick Youngson

Sara Fischer reports on Axios that Google and Facebook are booking “83% of every new ad dollar,” at $80.8B and $36.3B this year respectively.

These are huge percentages of the global advertising spend:

“Google’s ad revenue is roughly the same as all print ad revenue globally and Facebook’s ad revenue nearly topples all radio ad revenue globally.”

Related: the world’s biggest advertisers with country and category breakdowns.

My take: I was curious if this is a case of growing the market or of dominating the existing market. I think it’s a bit of both. Certainly mobile is where it’s at right now.

Streaming strengthens

Posted on by
Reply

As Netflix releases the first trailer for its most expensive movie to date at San Diego’s Comic Con ($90 Million USD for Bright, starring Will Smith), CMF Trends explores the flourishing streaming world:

They claim one out of three homes are watching Netflix every night; one out of six are watching Youtube; and one out of 25 is watching Amazon.

“In 2016, the consumption of audio and video content amounted to 71% of evening online traffic on fixed broadband networks in North America according to Sandvine. This proportion has doubled in the past five years…. The spending shift towards streaming services can also be observed in Canada, where spending on Internet access has been higher than spending on cable TV subscription since 2015.”

The cost of all that content is exploding on an upward curve as well:

For instance, prices paid for comedy specials have doubled:

My take: I’ll tell you what drove us to Netflx: TV commercials. We didn’t mind appointment viewing for the new shows we liked but the commercials became too intrusive for all but live events (like sports and award shows). And on Netflix, if the story really grabs you, you can binge watch multiple episodes.

Interactive video comes to Netflix

Posted on by
Reply

Casey Newton reports on The Verge that Netflix is testing interactive video with half its audience — kids.

The first title is Puss in Book: Trapped in an Epic Tale.

Carla Engelbrecht Fisher, Netflix’s director of product innovation, says:

“Kids are already talking to the screen. They’re touching every screen. They think everything is interactive.”

The result is a branching story that results in varying viewing lengths of 18 to 39 minutes.

A second title will have a simpler structure with four endings:

Note that Netflix has not invented branching stories — Choose Your Own Adventure published 250 million gamebooks over two decades in the previous millennium.

My take: it’s interesting that Netflix only has the technology working on half of their platforms. Nevertheless the potential is seductive. Think of the dramatic possibilities: “Feeling lucky, punk?” or “You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill — you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” One thing writers will have to get used to is the cavalier ease at which the audience will be able change the narrative — kind of like print designers had to let go of exact specificity when the web came along.

Google promotes VR180 on Youtube

Posted on by
Reply

Frank Rodriguez, Google’s VR Product Manager has posted The world as you see it with VR180 on both Google and Youtube.

“VR180 videos focus on what’s in front of you, are high resolution, and look great on desktop and on mobile. They transition seamlessly to a VR experience when viewed with Cardboard, Daydream, and PSVR, which allow you to view the images stereoscopically in 3-D, where near things look near, and far things appear far. VR180 also supports livestreaming videos so creators and fans can be together in real time.”

There are two main differences between 360 Video and VR180:

  • VR180 lacks the ‘back 180’ (which can therefore allow for higher resolution up front)
  • VR180 is stereoscopic, using two lenses to create true 3D, from the camera’s fixed point of view.

In addition, Google announced that they want to help build new VR180 cameras, initially partnering with Lenovo, LG, and YI Technology. Team Lucid tells me, “We hope to be the first certified camera for this program and will be sending updates via social on our progress.”

See the VR180 playlist on Youtube’s official Virtual Reality channel.

My take: glad to see Google/Youtube agree with me: 3D VR180 is a friendlier  version of 360 Video and true Virtual Reality. My only concern is that for browsers, be they web or mobile, they’ve removed the mouse or keyboard controls; the immersive goodies are for VR headsets exclusively. However, for a filmmaker like me who likes to shoot on a tripod, this promises to be the best of both worlds.

Creature feature launches Dark Universe

Posted on by
Reply

The Mummy not only wants to be a critical and financial success.

It also seeks to launch the Universal Studios‘ storyverse called the Dark Universe.

In addition to The Mummy, the Dark Universe will include, according to director Alex Kurtzman speaking to Fandom:

“We know we’re going to do Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Phantom of the Opera, Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Invisible Man…. There are characters within those films that can grow and expand and maybe even spin off. I think that digging into deep mythologies about monsters around the world is fair game for us, as well as connecting the monsters that we know to some surprising monsters could also be really interesting.”

Universal has a rich history of monster movies spanning many decades.

Andrew Liptak on The Verge speculates that Universal could build storyverses out of their upcoming films and their back catalogue:

  • Dune
  • World War II
  • Conan the Barbarian
  • Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon

He concludes with:

“It’s no secret that sequels and reboots are big business, and while the above suggestions are a bit tongue-in-cheek, many of these big studios have huge back catalogs that they can easily mine for years to come — provided audiences continue to tolerate that.”

My take: big, successful storyverses have tended to be science fiction (Star Wars) or comic book superheroes (Marvel and DC). Beyond individual stories, beyond multiple characters, Universal really needs to establish a compelling world with a core conflict of good versus evil to have a chance. Think transmedia. Personally, I think the path forward here is to reboot the “Abbott and Costello and Monsters” franchise. Ellie Kemper and Louis CK, anyone?

Ariana Grande organizes One Love Manchester benefit concert

Posted on by
Reply

Less than two weeks after a terrorist exploded a shrapnel bomb, killing 22 and injuring over one hundred, at her Manchester show, Ariana Grande returned to give the British city a star-studded benefit concert called One Love Manchester.

The 37-song three-hour concert featured Justin Bieber, The Black Eyed Peas, Coldplay, Miley Cyrus, Marcus Mumford, Niall Horan, Little Mix, Katy Perry, Take That, Imogen Heap, Pharrell Williams, Robbie Williams, and hometown hero Liam Gallagher. 50,000 people attended, and millions watched on television and Facebook, Youtube and Twitter around the world. Melvin Benn of Live Nation’s Festival Republic and BBC Studios put the production together in eight and a half days.

Ariana was devastated by the May 22, 2017, attack, posting on Twitter: “broken. from the bottom of my heart, i am so so sorry. i don’t have words.”

She then vowed to return:

“I’ll be returning to the incredibly brave city of Manchester to spend time with my fans and to have a benefit concert in honour of and to raise money for the victims and their families.”

She told her manager: “Scooter, if we do nothing I can’t live with that. We must do something.”

After Saturday night’s deadly attacks in London and concern that the concert might be cancelled, Scooter Braun, Ariana’s manager, issued a statement that the show would go on:

“After the events last night in London, and those in Manchester just two weeks ago, we feel a sense of responsibility to honor those lost, injured, and affected. We plan to honor them with courage, bravery, and defiance in the face of fear. Today’s One Love Manchester benefit concert will not only continue, but will do so with greater purpose. We must not be afraid, and in tribute to all those affected here and around the world, we will bring our voices together and sing loudly. I am pleased to say we have the full support of Greater Manchester police and the government and are assured the safety of all those attending is the highest priority. All artists involved have been unwavering in their support this morning and are determined to carry on with the show. We ask the strong city of Manchester and the world to join us in making the statement that hatred and fear will never win. Today we stand together.”

Ariana closed out the concert with a moving rendition of Somewhere Over the Rainbow. (She also sang this song almost a decade before, in much different times.)

Watch the full concert video posted on Ariana’s Facebook page.

Donate directly to the We Love Manchester Emergency Fund or the Canadian Red Cross.

My take: this concert was a powerful, heartfelt response to a reprehensible terrorist attack. Kudos to Ariana Grande for pulling it together and the artists who joined her. I think this will go down in history as a era-defining, historic concert, on par with The Concert for Bangladesh and Live Aid.

Indie distribution strategies

Posted on by
Reply

Ben Fritz reports in The Wall Street Journal that Video on Demand Gives Low-Budget Films Wider Audience.

The sub-head continues: Amazon and Netflix can widen movies’ reach. Just don’t expect big box office.

“Indie movies have become marginalized at the box office. Most rely exclusively on VOD rentals to make their money and use short runs at a handful of theaters to generate reviews.”

He outlines three ways independent filmmakers can distribute their work:

  1. Sell the movie to a digital distributor who then releases it on tVOD platforms (upfront payment, few stats and complex accounting)
  2. Launch on sVOD services like Netflix (one payment and no eyeball stats)
  3. DIY and release on Vimeo or other outlets and do all the marketing yourself (nothing up front but full stats)

The first is closest to the old film distributor model. The third is the method that most fully embraces the potential of the new economy. However, it requires the most time and energy.

My take: which model you choose might depend on your audience. For instance, if your film is mainstream, you might be tempted to look to Netflix. However, if your film is purely indie, Vimeo might be better suited. The real problem, of course, is getting noticed. How to stand out in a crowded pond. Discoverability is the main challenge for every project and filmmaker.

Giant step backwards for Canadian media

Posted on by
1

On May 15, 2017, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) renewed major television licenses for five years and also lowered the requirements for Canadian production.

In double-speak, it titled the media release “The CRTC supports the production of original content“.

Particularly troubling is the removal of the requirement for Bell Media to fund BravoFact and MuchFact (see clause 55):

“Deletion of various requirements

55. Bell Media requested the deletion of various conditions of licence and expectations for certain services. Given that the proposed changes are consistent with Commission policies, the Commission approves the following:

  • …for Bravo!, to delete the condition of licence requiring the licensee to contribute to BravoFACT;
  • for Much and Gusto (formerly M3), to delete the condition of licence requiring the licensee to contribute to MuchFACT;”

So upsetting is this that the Directors Guild of Canada (DGC) immediately launched a petition.

Bell replied that it hasn’t yet decided to kill the programs:

“Bell Media was granted flexibility by the CRTC in making contributions to MuchFACT and BravoFACT no longer conditions of license for its Much, Gusto, and Bravo specialty channels. We are currently reviewing both programs and no decisions have been made regarding their future at this time. Both programs continue to accept grant applications in anticipation of their next funding deadlines later this year.”

Tim Southam, DGC National President, said:

“For years, the CRTC has said it’s shifting focus from the number of hours of Canadian programming on air to the investment broadcasters make in original content. Now, they’re cutting the investment requirements, too. The Commission is betraying its own word and betraying Canadian creators. The CRTC got it right when they said that, in the digital world, broadcasters need to invest in innovative content that stands out in a global marketplace. So why let broadcasters slash their investments in distinctive, original content by $200 million over five years? The Commission called the right play, then absolutely blew the follow through.“

Tellingly, less than a month ago, Bell Media hinted it is about to launch a new streaming service. UPDATE: It’s television for cord cutters, called Alt TV.

My take: Is the CRTC trying to kill CanCon? I have won two BravoFACT grants, for my film ‘i luv spam’ and for Scott Amos’s ‘Scratch’. We were honoured and grateful we could finally pay our cast and crew on those productions. Thumbs down on both Bell Media and the CRTC. Also, I find the timing of the CRTC’s decisions suspect, as the government is about to release its new vision for Canadian culture in the digital age. Is the CRTC making an end run on behalf of its major stakeholders, or is this just a preview of more cuts to come?