News from the Blockchain

You’ve probably heard of BitCoin. But have you heard of the Blockchain, the system that makes it, and potentially many more things, possible?

At its simplest, the Blockchain is a frictionless, global, secure online ledger. It promises to radically overhaul banking in general and payment systems in particular.

Earlier this month the British music industry heard from PledgeMusic founder Benji Rogers and musician Imogen Heap about “an all-new, uber-transparent system of tracking music rights and paying for usage” based on the Blockchain.

Rogers believes that “the music industry could make use of the blockchain for its own new music format: something he’s dubbed .bc, or ‘dot Blockchain’.”

“Such a format would start with the ‘minimum viable data’ (MVD for short): details of the recording ownership, an ISRC/ISWC/ISNI code; publishing information; mechanical rights information, performer data; global licensing rules; usage rights; lyrics and images; payment details; and contact information.”

According to Heap:

“It’s a way of enabling those services to use the music under the terms of the artists, the rights-owners. We need to set the ethical, technological and commercial standards around how our music is used… At the moment, artists, we’re first in and last out: first in with our work, and right at the end, if we’re lucky, we get some cash back.”

Rogers concluded with an aggressive timeline for the new format:

“My goal is to have it by the end of the first quarter of this year. It’s gonna be name of song, name of artist, ISRC… I’m optimistic that we can come up with a suggested minimum viable dataset relatively quickly. I think it needs someone to really take this by the scruff of the neck in terms of doing it… If we can’t agree what five or six pieces of information constitute fair trade, we should all quit, because it shouldn’t be that hard.”

Wait, there’s more! CB Insights claims twelve industries will be remade by the Blockchain:

  1. Banking
  2. Payments and money transfers
  3. Cybersecurity
  4. Academic records and academia
  5. Voting
  6. Car leasing and sales
  7. Networking and IoT
  8. Smart contracts
  9. Forecasting
  10. Online music
  11. Ride sharing
  12. Stock trading

My take: if this can work for music, it can work for visual media too. Imagine releasing your work into the wild and compensation following back from viewers directly to you. When this comes to pass, whole industries of intermediators will disappear and artists will speak directly with their audiences.

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.

Short film is dead. Long live web series!

I have made over 40 short films.

Today, to me, making a short is like painting a picture in the park on a Sunday afternoon. Pleasant, but unchallenging.

With this in mind, I recently read an old posting by Mike Jones at No Film School.

In it he argues that the short film is dead.

“There are two ways of looking at how a Short Film serves the emerging and aspiring filmmaker. The first is as a Learning Exercise, the second is as a Calling Card.”

He then proceeds to debunk both beliefs and concludes:

“As with many long-entrenched elements of filmmaking, the tradition of the short film needs to be let go of and seen as the antiquated anomaly it is; a tool of a bygone era. A good short film can be great work of art but emerging and aspiring filmmakers need much more than a short work of art to build a career. The short-format, online, episodic webseries is the most dynamic, audience-driven, self-publicising, learning vehicle indie filmmakers (in film school or not) have ever had access to.

My take: I’m warming up to this idea. I’ve been toying with a concept that could be realized as a dozen episodes. 2016 will be a great year for me to launch it! Stay tuned!

Media empires in Canada

ClutchPR has published a fascinating infographic on the concentration of media ownership in Canada.

Their self-admitted non-exhaustive list is Toronto and Ontario-centric but nevertheless does a great job of illustrating various TV, Radio and Print media empires.

The companies listed are:

  • TorStar (Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator, Waterloo Region Record, Guelph Mercury, versions of commuter paper Metro in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, and 116 community papers)
  • Woodbridge (Globe and Mail, Thomson Reuters)
  • Postmedia (Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen, Regina Leader-Post, Vancouver Sun and Windsor Star, in addition to tabloid Sun family: Toronto Sun and others in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver’s The Province, magazine Financial Post Business and Canada.com)
  • Rogers (Rogers TV, OMNI, Shopping Channel, OLN, Sportsnet and City, SVOD player Shomi (which it co-owns with Shaw,) 53 radio stations, including 680 News, Kiss 92.5 and 98.1 CHFI, plus magazines Canadian Business, Chatelaine, Maclean’s, Today’s Parent, Marketing, Flare, Glow and Hello! Canada)
  • Bell (CTV and CTV News, CP24, MUCH, Bravo, Comedy Network, Space, E! and HBO Canada, radio stations NewsTalk 1010, TSN Radio, 104.5 CHUM-FM and 999 Virgin Radio and Sympatico.ca)
  • Newcap (all but two radio stations in Newfoundland, 22 in Alberta and Toronto’s Flow 93.5 and Boom 97.3)
  • Shaw (Global Television Network, along with BBC Canada, Food Network, History, HGTV, Showcase and Slice, among other stations)
  • Corus (YTV, Teletoon, Treehouse, and Canadian versions of Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Disney channel, W network, Oprah Winfrey Network Canada and 80 percent of Cosmopolitan TV, radio stations Talk Radio AM 640, 102.1 The Edge and Q107)
  • Zoomer (Zoomer Radio 740AM and Classical 96, and TV stations Vision and One)
  • Quebecor (Le Journal de Montréal, Le Journal de Québec, TVA Group, Vidéotron and TVA Publishing)
  • CBC (CBC and CBC News networks, and CBC Radio 1, 2 and 3, other assets including Radio Canada International and 40 per cent of Sirius Canada)
  • APTN, TVO and VICE

My take: it looks like only a dozen or so companies own the vast majority of media outlets in Canada. What’s missing from this list is Internet Connectivity: Bell, Rogers and Shaw also control the bulk of that.

Mobile is where it’s going

Benedict Evans of Andreessen Horowitz asserts that “mobile is the future of technology and of the internet” in his year-end review 16 mobile theses.

A sample:

“We should stop talking about ‘mobile’ internet and ‘desktop’ internet – it’s like talking about ‘colour’ TV, as opposed to black and white TV. We have a mental mode, left over from feature phones, that ‘mobile’ means limited devices that are only used walking around. But actually, smartphones are mostly used when you’re sitting down next to a laptop, not ‘mobile’, and their capabilities make them much more sophisticated as internet platforms than PC. Really, it’s the PC that has the limited, cut-down version of the internet.”

The topics he covers are:

  1. Mobile is the new central ecosystem of tech
  2. Mobile is the internet
  3. Mobile isn’t about small screens and PCs aren’t about keyboards – mobile means an ecosystem and that ecosystem will swallow ‘PCs’
  4. The future of productivity
  5. Microsoft’s capitulation
  6. Apple & Google both won, but it’s complicated
  7. Search and discovery
  8. Apps and the web
  9. Post Netscape, post PageRank, looking for the next run-time
  10. Messaging as a platform, and a way to get customers
  11. The unclear future of Android and the OEM world
  12. Internet of Things
  13. Cars
  14. TV and the living room
  15. Watches
  16. Finally, we are not our users

Regarding search and discovery, Benedict says, “The internet makes it possible to get anything you’ve ever heard of but also makes it impossible to have heard of everything.”

We moved from browsing to search but today how do the iOS and Android platforms affect discoverability? Is there still room for curation? He ends with the age-old question: “How do you get users?”

Regarding the next ‘run-time’ he says,

“Really, we’re looking for a new run-time – a new way, after the web and native apps, to build services. That might be Siri or Now or messaging or maps or notifications or something else again. But the underlying aim is to construct a new search and discovery model – a new way, different to the web or app stores, to get users.”

Hear Benedict in this presentation.

My take: It’s been a dozen years since video first appeared on the Internet. Since then, the mediascape has been in transition. I admit I find it more faceted and confusing than ever. Benedict’s summary illustrates some of the fundamental shifts now taking place.

The Most Technologically Advanced Book Ever Published

Chuck Salter writes in FastCoDesign about a publishing company that continues to innovate in the personal book field.

First came ‘The Girl Who Lost Her Name’ and ‘The Boy Who Lost His Name’. Now comes ‘The Incredible Intergalactic Journey Home’.

“This time, a lost boy or girl navigates his or her way from outer space back home. Spoiler alert: to the reader’s actual home. The wayward space ship swoops into his or her city and arrives in the child’s neighborhood. The image, the book’s big reveal, incorporates the corresponding satellite photos. That degree of personalization required even more algorithms and developers than Lost My Name’s first book, along with help from NASA, Microsoft, satellite makers, and other unlikely children’s book partners.”

The creators are Lost My Name of East London. What a wondrous book and a steal at $30.

My take: I love this concept and the marvellous execution! (The new book does remind me slightly of Arcade Fire‘s Chrome Experiment, The Wilderness Downtown, which may or may not be still working.) Now imagine this in the video realm. I see no reason, with the state of CGI, digital production and online streaming, that my likeness could not be inserted into productions and animated, for my entertainment only. Maybe not in real-time initially and probably not voice. But imagine your own channel on Netflix, starring or co-starring you! That might be fun.

Issues in digitizing history

Fast Company recently published The Trouble with Digitizing History.

Tina Amirtha claims “The Netherlands spent seven years and $202 million to digitize huge swaths of AV archives that most people will never see.”

She interviews Tom de Smet, head archivist of the Sound and Vision Institute, and Gene DeAnna, acting chief of the recorded sound section at the Library of Congress’s National Audio-Visual Conservation Center.

‘”It doesn’t make sense to digitize everything,” de Smet says in his office at Sound and Vision. “You have ask yourself, ‘Who are you doing this for?’” Researchers may be interested in a narrow set of media, while the public may prefer a skim of the archives. “Honestly, only a little bit of the funding should go towards digitization and the rest, towards digital preservation,” says de Smet.’

The problems are many:

  • high costs
  • limited copyright clearances
  • indexing and meta-tagging needs for search retrieval
  • differing audiences: researchers and general public
  • media platform choices: in-house hosting or Youtube

Future considerations include:

  • securing pre-licenses to kick in after 25 years
  • donations of lesser known works by media companies

A major concern is that, over time, systems impose technological barriers to access. For instance, who still has a U-matic deck or even a VHS player?

My take: this is the paradox of the modern information age: whereas paper-based documents can last hundreds of years, digital works may be corrupt within a decade and obsolete within two decades. Is digital a Faustian bargain?

Legacy media companies face dilemmas

Richard Greenfield from BTIG Research recently asked “Can Netflix Be Stopped? If Not, What Can Legacy Media Do?” at Neuehouse, NYC, on November 23, 2015.

His entertaining half hour overview of the modern mediascape and the dilemmas the TV industry faces is highly insightful.

Well worth watching; here are three takeaways:

  1. The problem is not so much the content but the medium used to distribute it. The TV model, even TV Everywhere, is losing dominance.
  2. In addition, viewers are simply turning away from interruption advertising any way they can.
  3. Viewers are moving their monthly video dollars from Cable TV to Subscription Video on Demand services, like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO Now and Showtime.

My take: Richard even predicts an ad-free future in which most if not all content is paid by subscription. See his take on the future for film companies.

Portrait mode video lures advertisers

Even though a mock Vertical Video Syndrome PSA first appeared in 2012, it seems as if portrait mode video is making a big splash.

According to Snapchat (as quoted in Long Considered an Eyesore, Vertical Video Is Now Being Embraced by Mobile Marketers on Entrepreneur),

“Vertical video ads are nine times more likely to be viewed to completion than their horizontal counterparts.”

There’s even a platform dedicated exclusively to vertical videos. Vervid plans to become the Youtube for “thoughtful content” shot in upright mode on iPhones. They write on Medium:

“We hold our phones vertically 90% of the time. Thanks to Snapchat and now Meerkat and Periscope, this behavior is becoming even more normalized as more and more content is being shot natively in portrait mode. So rather than having to constantly switch between how we naturally hold our phones (vertically) to the way most media has traditionally been formatted (horizontally), users are now able to enjoy content the way they’ve secretly always wanted to — upright, up close and personal.”

My take: even though purists might decry this state of affairs, I think it’s only a natural evolution. Consider that over 50% of Youtube views now come from mobile. Those mobile viewers will gladly watch in portrait orientation, saving themselves the time to rotate their phones horizontally. And though almost all movies are shot using horizontal aspect ratios, Xavier Dolan went 1:1 for Mommy!