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.

Get a job and then give your films away

Following up on job strategies to support your independent filmmaking habit from last week, Christian Stella writes in Filmmaker Magazine:

“I feel it is best to branch out. Hedge your bets with the stability of a career that may not be glitzy but is less cutthroat than film.”

For instance, he’s a successful food photographer and cookbook author.

This freelance career allows him the freedom to invest time into his craft. Plus, he’s able to free up his schedule for future productions.

“A flexible career outside of film may be the best foundation to assure that your films can ever get made. Most people can scrape together enough time, money, and favors to make their first film, but you’ll need stability to make the second, third, and so on.”

Stella is one half of a filmmaking duo. He and Jeremy Gardner have made two films: The Battery and Tex Montana Will Survive!. Profiting only a pittance on their first movie, they decided to try something different with their latest project.

Rather than stretch the economic life of the movie out over many years, they decided to sell it only once. On Kickstarter. For $50,000. The plan was to raise the money and then release the film for free, to the world, under Creative Commons.

“This campaign is in part an effort to address the countless messages we received from amazing film fans across the globe, who were understandably frustrated with how long it took for our previous film, The Battery, to be made available in their countries. It is also a reaction, to a very sobering—and demoralizing—reality we were made painfully aware of by the end of The Battery’s incredible journey: It is incredibly difficult to make a living as an independent filmmaker. A dramatic influx of films on the market—coupled with the rise of peer-to-peer sharing through torrent sites—has resulted in a drastic decrease in compensation for filmmakers across the board. Minimum Guarantees (MGs) are small and residuals trickle in over the course of years.”

Did they make it?

Yes! 759 backers pledged $53,889 — around $60 each (disregarding the top half dozen backers.) Watch the comedy here.

My take: I love this strategy! You make a film. You give it a realistic price. Your fans support you. You give the film to the world. This totally cuts out the friction between the creator and the audience. Gone are the middlemen and the market. (But remember to reserve the intellectual rights so you can protect your brand and do the remake. Just ask George Romero.)

Swanberg at SXSW

At his recent SXSW Keynote, mumblecore alumnus Joe Swanberg related his approach to making money making independent movies. Summarized in forty words:

  1. Share information.
  2. Be prolific.
  3. Capitalize on festival buzz with day and date VOD releases.
  4. Own as much of your films as possible.
  5. Invest in your own projects.
  6. Sometimes no budget is better than some budget.
  7. Happiness is money too.

Regarding budgets, Joe explains:

“If you have ‘some money’, everybody is going to want some of that ‘some money.’ If you have ‘no money’, everybody knows it — and then they’re just there to work. In a best case scenario — you sell a movie and then you’re able to pay people afterwards better than you could’ve paid them if you had ‘some money.'”

Here’s what he says about taking that industry job that kills your soul:

“It’s often just not worth the money to take a shitty job on something you hate. Nobody likes a bad movie. I don’t know any scenario where a filmmaker hates the film they’re making and have that movie turn out any good. You may think that you’re taking a paycheck or making some money, but in fact you’re making the next person who wants to invest in your work less likely to do it.”

More coverage at Indiewire, No Film School and The Guardian.

By the way, Netflix has just placed an order with Swanberg for an 8-episode comedy series called Easy.

My take: I wholeheartedly agree with Joe’s thoughts on budgets. As soon as you have some real money, it’s never enough. Shoestring budgets force you to be creative and pay for critical items only (and food).

The disconnect between Hollywood prizes and profits

There seems to be a disconnect between Hollywood’s fascination with comic book superheroes, their international box office performance, and the Oscars.

Over two dozen superhero movies will be released between now and 2020. (See the list at the end of this post.)

At the Oscars, although dystopian sci-fi ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ scooped six statues, almost all the awards went to ‘smaller’ films: ‘Spotlight’ won Best Picture and ‘The Revenant’ scored Best Director, Actor and Cinematography.

Consulting Box Office Mojo‘s 2015 international rankings, we see ‘The Revenant’ is in 16th position and ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is in 20th. Superhero flicks ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ in 6th place and ‘Ant-Man’ in 13th have made more money.

For 2016, ‘Deadpool‘ tops this year’s take so far.  It’s currently the 10th most successful comic book adaptation, and still climbing!

See how lucrative franchises and brands are. The 65 Marvel and DC Comics movies have made over $11 billion at the international box office to date.

My take: I don’t quite understand the fascination with fantasy films. Is it simply that reality is too depressing and people want escape? Or, is it just age at work — so many more young viewers go to the movies and they prefer action pictures? Or, is the advanced average age of the Academy voters revealing their preference for dramas?

The coming comic book movies and their release dates:

‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’ March 25, 2016
‘Captain America: Civil War’ May 6, 2016
‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ May 27, 2016
‘Suicide Squad’ August 5, 2016
‘Doctor Strange’ November 4, 2016
‘Untitled LEGO Batman Movie’ February 20, 2017
‘Untitled Wolverine Movie’ March 3, 2017
‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2’ May 5, 2017
‘Wonder Woman’ June 23, 2017
‘Untitled Spider-Man Reboot’ July 7, 2017
‘Untitled Fox/Marvel Film’ October 6, 2017
‘Thor: Ragnarok’ November 3, 2017
‘Untitled Fox/Marvel Film’ January 12, 2018
‘Justice League Part One’ November 17, 2017
‘Black Panther’ February 16, 2018
‘The Flash’ March 16, 2018
‘Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1’ May 4, 2018
‘Ant-Man and the Wasp’ July 6, 2018
‘Untitled Fox/Marvel Film’ July 13, 2018
‘Animated Spider-Man Film’ July 20, 2018
‘Aquaman’ July 27, 2018
‘Captain Marvel’ March 8, 2019
‘Shazam’ April 5, 2019
‘Avengers: Infinity War – Part 2’ May 3, 2019
‘Justice League Part Two’ June 14, 2019
‘Inhumans’ July 12, 2019
‘Cyborg’ April 3, 2020
‘Green Lantern Corps.’ June 19, 2020
‘Gambit’ TBD

Seth Godin’s metric for work that matters

Contently‘s Editor in Chief Joe Lazauskas recently interviewed Seth Godin for The Content Strategist.

Seth writes about change. In the interview, he talks about trust and content that you actually want to read, among other things. For me the best section, the one that resonates most with me, is this one:

“Q: What metrics do you think best measures the fact that you’re doing work that matters?

A: I think the only one that I care about is: Will people miss you if you are gone?”

My take: I think this is a great approach to almost anything: Do work that leaves a lasting impression.

How the Internet radically transformed the mediascape

Late last year Brian Stelter of CNN interviewed Barry Diller. Diller is currently the Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC. However, his career spans advertising, motion pictures, cable TV and Internet sites, so he has a unique perspective on the mediascape.

In the interview, Diller reframes cable TV, broadcasting and television as we know it. Here’s a transcription of the clip:

Stelter: Are you bearish on cable as a whole industry? Meaning on the bundle?

Diller: No — no, no, no. You have to separate. I actually think that cable, which is now no longer — these words don’t make sense any more, because it really isn’t really cable as we know it. Cable companies are now much more interested in data and broadband. That is where in fact the margins are high and they don’t have to deal with program suppliers, who they all hate. Why do they hate them? Because they keep raising prices. And so, the margins in the old program business have deteriorated while the margins in the broadband business are wondrous. So, you can’t really call them cable companies any more. I don’t even think you can even call broadcast companies, broadcast companies any more, because their over the air signals are now very little in use in terms of direct reception. They’re all being carried by data systems, which is a new word for cable.

Stelter: I love when you say these words don’t make sense any more.

Diller: They don’t. I mean, they really don’t. Because this transformation we’re going through, the radicalism, which is THE Internet, which once it got the capacity to carry rich data, meaning moving pictures and movies, whatever you call it — rich data, once that happened, it was inevitable that it would bust things wide and the result of course is that you’re seeing transformations in all of these businesses.

Stelter: How do you define the word “television”.

Diller: Well television is also a stupid word. Because we think of television — we used to think obviously television was three channels and them it expanded by cable to dozens, hundreds of channels and then thousands and millions of channels via broadband. So, the idea of what you quote “call television” — is televison Netflix? Well people don’t really think it is. They’re trying to make these distinctions. It’s video. You know, I mean, it’s video.

Stelter: So that’s the best word now? For anything like this?

Diller: I don’t know. Make up any word you like. It will probably — television — you know — tele-vision. Just think of the derivation of the word and it kind of I guess applies. Except in people’s minds, television is the old system.”

My take: This is all about separating content from its transmission mode. Commercial over-the-air broadcast technology arrived in the 1940s — it then took numerous decades for TV programming to evolve into its current format. Cable TV appeared in the 1980s and Broadband only 10 years ago. Over-the-air, then cable and now broadband: each new mode of transmission increased the number of channels exponentially, giving more choice to consumers and more outlets to producers. The rub is to figure out how the economics will continue to work. Diller points out that the technological way in which the viewers get the content is where the profit lies.

Scoping out a transmedia campaign

“How Gaming Director Keith Arem Developed His First ‘Transmedia’ Film” reveals all the elements in a well-rounded transmedia project.

These include:

  • an April 8 debut for the UFO conspiracy docudrama film, Phoenix Incident
  • festival screenings in February and March
  • viral marketing that began four years ago
  • an interactive app version of the film for Apple TV
  • gamification elements in the app that reward more active users
  • corporate partnerships

Arem, a video game industry veteran, says:

“With companies like Steam and Apple, the idea is to move away from traditional distribution, and turn the model around to get creators involved in changing the way people experience entertainment.”

The article concludes:

“Arem is planning Phoenix Incident spin-offs, including a virtual reality experience, a television series, and prequel films inspired by other unexplained incidents.”

My take: I think the smartest move here is the choice of subject and genre: UFO sci-fi/cover-up conspiracy/documentary. This guarantees a dedicated niche audience. One thing that surprises me is how long the viral campaign has been active. For the transmedia bible, see Gary Hayes’ “How to Write a Transmedia Production Bible”.

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.