A novel way to search for films

Folks in the UK are in for a treat.

The British Film Institute has added Britain on Film to its BFI Player.

What makes this stand out is the both the film collection and the search method.

Enter the site and you’re prompted to enter a place: favourite childhood holiday, where your parents met, favourite place in the UK.

Next, you are shown a map of the spot, surrounded by markers indicating place-specific films. On the right, you can refine the results by decade and subject or simply ‘See all the films.’

From the media release:

“Many of these films have never – or rarely – been seen since their first appearance and can now be searched for by specific UK locations through BFI Player’s ground-breaking new Film and TV Map of the UK, which also enables people to share films with their family, friends and communities.”

The only catch is that you have to have a UK IP address.

In the meantime, Canadians can make do with the National Film Board‘s excellent site, albeit with standard searching. (I thought Mudflats Living was fascinating, as Victoria currently debates ‘micro-housing.’)

My take: I love maps, so I particularly like the way Britain on Film organizes searches first by location, displaying the results on a map, and then by subject. I think it would be fascinating to geo-locate scenes from all movies this way. Hey Google, can you implement this feature on YouTube soon?

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.

Telefilm Micro-Budget Feature Winners Announced

Telefilm Canada has revealed the 2015 finalists of its wonderful Micro-Budget Feature Production Program.

In addition, Telefilm announced that the Talent Fund will subsidize the program. This is great news as it assures stable funding for the near future:

“The Fund has raised over $15 million to date from companies, foundations and individuals. The money will be invested over a period of seven years. Sixty percent of the Micro-Budget Production Program will be financed by the Talent Fund.”

Fifteen teams now negotiate with Telefilm for $100K+ in financing for their projects.

“This is the third annual round of projects in the Micro-Budget Production Program, which supports emerging filmmakers seeking to produce their first feature-length films, with emphasis on the use of digital platforms and developing their potential for distribution and audience engagement.”

I notice that this year most of the projects came through film schools rather than film co-ops as in the past.

Future applicants should note an innovative promotion and digital distribution plan is critical:

identify the target audience;
identify the goals for audience reach and engagement;
describe the release strategy;
identify the digital platform(s) on which the main distribution of the project will be made;
describe how the project will be promoted on the chosen platforms;
enumerate the distribution and/or promotion partners that will be pursued;
provide the budget for the promotion and distribution plan;
add any other information deemed important regarding the promotion and distribution plan

My take: this remains the best way to fund your first feature in Canada. Telefilm is rightly proud to have brought 37 features into being in the last three years.

One of the best reasons to make a short film

Nathalie Sejean just posted a fascinating post on her excellent site, Mentorless.com titled To Short or Not to Short? 20 Filmmakers Who Successfully Transitioned from Short to Feature.

In it she lists twenty filmmakers from George Lucas (THX-1138) to Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) who graduated from shorts to features.

See the wonderful infographic.

Canadian filmmakers interested in this path should apply to Bell Media‘s Shorts-to-Features Program right away — the deadline is in two days!

My take: I think this is a good strategy. Particularly because we live in such a visually-dominant age, the more you can show of your storyverse to your potential fans and backers, the better. I lean towards reworking one or two scenes from your feature as a stand-alone short — now you’ve got a film and footage to cut into your crowd-finding pitch video.

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.

U2 shows us the way with live mobile streaming

First Youtube enabled anyone to post moving images to the Internet, democratizing the movies.

Now mobile streaming apps are revolutionizing live broadcasting, once the domain of television.

Having just launched within the last three months, both Meerkat and Periscope enable anyone with a smartphone to stream live video broadcasts in realtime to the world.

Meerkat (IOS and Android) wants you to first log in to Twitter. The left column lists upcoming streams, comments are on the right and the stream is featured vertically in the middle. Meerkat loves the colour yellow.

Periscope (IOS and Adroid) was purchased by Twitter shortly after Meerkat debuted. Comments are superimposed in the bottom left-hand corner, and you can show some ‘love’ with hearts that float up the right side of the vertical screen.

You can search Twitter to find live Meerkat streams or live Periscope streams.

Or, New York digital & social agency, GLOW, offers two ways to sample multiple streams:

Rock band U2 have embraced Meerkat. During the current i+e Tour, according to The Hollywood Reporter,

“The band invites an audience member onto the B stage to shoot a stripped-down number — on this night, ‘Angel of Harlem’ — to be broadcast live via the fledgling Meerkat platform. ‘This goes out across the globe — to about 150 people, until it catches on,’ Bono quipped.”

My take: I think this is truly revolutionary. The ‘airwaves’ for traditional TV broadcasters are strictly controlled by the FCC in America and the CRTC in Canada. Now, everyone with a smartphone has a ‘TV’ camera in their pocket and can begin broadcasting to the world at any time, for free! Journalism and entertainment may never be the same again. Interestingly, both apps use a mobile-friendly vertical orientation, which is decidedly uncinematic.

Netflix at Cannes

As reported in Variety, Netflix Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos recently outlined their strategy to break into the film business at the Cannes Film Festival, again.

Recall that Netflix upended the TV industry when it began producing its own series like “Lilyhammer,” “House of Cards” and “Orange Is the New Black.”

“Sarnados said that when Netflix launched in 1997, 90% of the content viewed on the service was movies. Now it’s only 33%, with TV series making up two-thirds of what people watch on Netflix.”

Sarandos mentioned Netflix has five or six feature projects in the works, some picked up at film festivals, some produced in-house.

Budgets range from $10 to $50 million.

Some will go straight to Neflix (like Adam Sandler’s “Ridiculous 8”) and some will be released theatrically first. He would like to see more day and date releases.

Not everyone will recall that Netflix previously operated a film acquisition and production company called Red Envelope Entertainment which it closed in 2008, in part to avoid competition with its studio partners.

My take: Netflix has the market leader’s competitive advantage. What other subscription video on demand (SVOD) platforms do people like, and actually use? Anyone got Shomi or Crave?

Five Tips for the $500 Feature

I recently read Scott McMahon‘s post 5 Tips To Make Your Independent Film More Viable with interest.

He believes that as an indie filmmaker you should:

  1. Do what you love.
  2. Keep it cheap.
  3. Offer value.
  4. Be specific.
  5. Make what Hollywood will not make.

To back up his beliefs, he made a feature for $500 using what he calls Resource Filmmaking.

I followed up with Scott via email:

Why did you want to make ‘THE CUBE’?

“I went to film school, made a lot of awful short films; but one that was half-way decent. Good enough to land a job at Sony PlayStation. I was there for 12 years and ran the Cinematic Department. When that gig ended, I did what any smart person would do when the economy is tanking — make an independent film! After being disillusioned by the traditional way things were being done, I spent the next seven years trying to answer this basic question: ‘If films can be sold online, then how do successful entrepreneurs sell things online?’ I was used to making things in a big playground, spoiled by PlayStation, but I knew there could be a way to make a really small feature film… I just didn’t have a story to tell. Until one day, I did. ‘THE CUBE’ was made because it was a story that I could film and make in my own home and around my full-time job. ‘THE CUBE’ was made for $500 with no crew. It wasn’t planned that way, but my lead actress had a limited window to make the film, so I just redesigned my shot lists to use more static shots than I had originally planned.

A year and a half later, are you in profit?

“I made ‘THE CUBE’ all wrong. It’s a film with no stars, a genre that is not clearly identified, and I built no audience awareness for it. With that said, I knew things would be CHEAP and SLOW. However, I have made money between the theatrical premiere and Electronic Sell Through (EST) sales. So, in a way, you can say I’m a successful filmmaker because I made a film for a set budget and not only made my money back, but made a little profit as well.”

What’s your ROI?

“The easiest way to determine ROI for any über independent filmmaker selling their film directly online is to use the conversion rate of 1%. This means, that if your film gets 1,000 trailer views, then about 1% of viewers will actually pay for your film. 1% of 1,000 views equals 10 sales transactions. 10 x $5 rental price = $50 in sales. You can read more about this 1% conversion rate in a guest blog post I wrote on Ted Hope’s blog. My overall trailer views have been around 5,500. With a 1% conversion rate, I’ve made about 55 sales transactions at around $10 a transaction. That’s about $550 in sales. Adding in the profit made on the local theatrical premiere of about $180, ‘THE CUBE’ has pulled in about $730. Laughable, I know… but it was always designed this way. That’s why I made sure the film was made for so cheap. Now, the cool thing is that I plan on relaunching this film again, with a whole new marketing campaign and targeting an audience who are NOT other filmmakers. I’ll report back on this experiment later in the year to share those results too. The great thing about owning the license to my own IP, I can repackage it, relaunch it, and resell it in anyway I feel will work. So, I still may make more money in the future.”

Do you have another feature in development and what’s the budget?

“‘THE CUBE’ was always designed as a small film for me… and to be used as an experiment to see what works and what doesn’t work when selling a film product online. With my next feature film, I’m trying to apply all the things that should have been done the first time around. This particular film is in the straight up scary movie genre. The budget is targeted at another $500. Why? I’m very keen on trying to get better at making feature films in this budget range and test my storytelling skills as much as possible. I believe one day, someone is going to make a little film for $100 and sell it directly online to an audience and make a million. Remember the iPhone app boom, when a single programmer could make a ‘fart’ app, sell it for $0.99 and make a million? Who’s to say this can’t happen to a filmmaker? Once it does, then the entire indie film industry will turn its head and say, ‘Ok, let’s do it like that.’ Anyway, that’s where my interests lie. When the normal convention is to think that we should up the budget and go bigger… I want to go even smaller.”

What’s the one piece of advice you’d like indie filmmakers to follow?

“From all the work I’ve done over at FilmTrooper.com, where I focus on trying to help filmmakers become entrepreneurs, this is the one thing that stands out for me: Filmmakers should ‘let go’ of their ego and surrender their talents to SERVE a group of people who they have determined to be their IDEAL FANS. Putting yourself in a place where you are SERVING others will give you greater joy and fulfillment… more so than any award can ever give.”

My take: thanks, Scott, for sharing. I also think smaller budgets force filmmakers to come up with creative solutions to challenges, rather than just throwing money at ‘problems.’ A $500 budget certainly enforces some creative discipline — Ingrid Veninger in Toronto raises the bar to $1000.

The Netflix Quantum Theory explained

If you subscribe to Netflix, you’ve likely seen some strange categories suggested for your entertainment:

  • Cult Mockumentaries With a Strong Female Lead
  • Chilling Workplace Mysteries From the 1980s
  • Cerebral Mind-Bending Courtroom Fantasy Movies

While those might not be real categories, Alexis Madrigal and Ian Bogost looked into Netflix’s taxonomy and concluded they have over 75,000 different ones.

They’ve even posted a spreadsheet listing 10 sub-genre columns. The longest one, Adjectives, has almost 150 rows, everything from Absurd to Zombie.

The fascinating tale of their data hunt is detailed in The Atlantic’s How Netflix Reverse Engineered Hollywood.

‘Todd Yellin is Netflix’s VP of Product and the man responsible for the creation of Netflix’s system. Tagging all the movies was his idea…. A fascinating thing I learned from Yellin is that the underlying tagging data isn’t just used to create genres, but also to increase the level of personalization in all the movies a user is shown. So, if Netflix knows you love Action Adventure movies with high romantic ratings (on their 1-5 scale), it might show you that kind of movie, without ever saying, “Romantic Action Adventure Movies.” “We’re gonna tag how much romance is in a movie. We’re not gonna tell you how much romance is in it, but we’re gonna recommend it,” Yellin said. “You’re gonna get an action row and it may have more or less romance in it based on what we know about you.”‘

My take: I love The Atlantic’s Netflix-Genre Generator. There are three flavours: Netflix, Hollywood and Gonzo. Good for lots of chuckles — and maybe some bright ideas too!