for films to reach the market place, filmmakers have to cope with a distribution environment that is currently in a state of flux, deterioration and rapid transformation.
if you are an independent filmmaker without the backing from a major studio, the distribution landscape looks very different today than it did just a few years back.
in order to respond to these changes, should filmmakers examine and draw inspirations from the leading role that some musicians play in today’s music industry? even more so, should filmmakers look to how museums and other cultural institutions have survived in order to develop new approaches to film financing?
BACK TO BASICS
i tend to believe that the best way to get your film out there is to start with a good product. that is, at the very least, a filmmaker has to produce a unique piece of work of exceptional quality, and that doing so starts with the manuscript. the script is the most important building block to a film that will ultimately generate revenue and open doors.
in terms of production costs, i think that there are many compelling reasons for filmmakers to create films which correspond to their budget and accept these constraints as a benefit. the films “old joy” and “wendy and lucy” are really good examples of this. these two films make the most with what (limited) means they have at their disposal and have done quite well. others filmmakers would benefit from adopting a similar approach.
DISTRIBUTION THEN AND NOW
once you’ve made a film that has a compelling story and is assembled by maximizing its budget and constraints, the film needs to be put into circulation. as many have noted, a few years ago, most films with at least some sort of backing found distribution via a theatrical release or dvd-distribution, or even the support of netflix. at the same time, independent films found some inroads via netflix, and a few operators were even able to secure a limited theatrical release for their films. today, most films will be shown online, either as their primary mode of distribution or as an important supporting aspect of the film’s general release.
the benefits of online distribution are many and widely publicized (for one, it levels the playing field, somewhat, between major studios and tiny independent distributors) but the drawbacks are also significant, primarily that films tend to quickly lose their monetary value, especially if unauthorized versions of the film are distributed for free. major studios are fighting the unauthorized distribution, and, in time, major online distributors like youtube will also have to fight it. this is primarily because of the costs of maintaining bandwidth that increases with so much demand, which means that youtube will eventually be compelled to re-think their revenue models because they won’t be able to afford to keep it free… but we haven’t reached that point yet.
for now, the argument about films that are available online is why pay for something if you can get it for free?
this is especially true for independent films and even more so for short films.
in such an environment, how are filmmakers (as well as film producers) going to make money from their work, let alone recoup their investment?
GIVE IT AWAY
there’s a compelling argument making the rounds right now that films, just like music and other works of online art, should be given away for free.
chris anderson is one proponent of this discussion, which he recently re-formulated in his book, aptly titled “free: the future of a radical price” (found here – it’s also reviewed in the july 6, 2009 new yorker).
i want to draw some connections between chris anderson’s notion of free and an article connecting anderson to recent trends in the music industry, because there seem to be some obvious parallels between music distribution and film distribution.
over at wired, the aforementioned article connects chris anderson with trent reznor, who supports the idea of giving away much of his music for free.
the gist of the article concludes that artists would best serve their interests if they make their primary products available at no cost to the consumer (like radiohead and nine inch nails have done) but in this process, in which they build up loyalty amongst their fans (consumers), they will have a market that will be very interested in purchasing customized, personalized, or rare and hard to find products or artifacts from the artist.
this is where the artist will make their money.
i’m wondering if this would apply for film? it smells a little bit like a bait and switch. is it?
of course, as of september 2009, the reality is that musicians make most of their money from touring and merchandising, which, as of today, does not apply to filmmakers, but i’ll come back to that later.
for music, i can kind of see how this notion of free would work. an artist releases an album for free, but charges for rare commodities such as earlier versions of certain songs, songs that never made it for release, documentary footage of the artist at work, to very personal things like certain touring mementos or even more personal / rare items (like what amanda palmer of the dresden dolls has done recently, such as selling off old love letters and items of clothing that she’s had for years)….
in fact, while the artist imogen heap (an innovator, or at least an early adaptor, when it comes to music distribution and cultivating fan support via her acumen for social media) just released her new album via conventional means (itunes and cd distribution), she has also invested, and continues to invest, a lot of time and energy into releasing the following items at a premium price: a limited edition vinyl version of the album with artwork that comes with some sort of pass to be used for special features at upcoming concerts; hand-crafted videos where the artist offers insights and introductions to each track on the album; the same album with instrumentals track only; and, perhaps six months after the album release, there’ll be a special edition dvd which compiles many of the previously mentioned special editions, to name a few.
can filmmakers do this? is this a viable model? what are we talking about?
IF IT’S GOOD FOR THE MUSIC INDUSTRY, IS IT GOOD FOR THE FILM INDUSTRY?
should filmmakers create special limited edition versions of their films? should filmmakers charge fans for the director’s insights on the film (which, generally speaking, appear as an extra feature on the dvd or the film’s website – for free)?
should filmmakers release “unfinished” versions of their films, at a price, so that fans can remix the film or add their own score? and, like imogen heap, should filmmakers stagger the release of these so-called rarities to maximize demand?
or have i missed the point?
i have no problem with giving some things away for free, and, in the process of creating every film, there are always discards and ideas and darlings that never make it to the final cut – yet are these the items that “fans” will later covet?
if i was a fan of a particular film or director, it would seem that one of the few things which would be very desirable to obtain from filmmakers is something that filmmakers have so little of themselves: TIME (i.e. the user experience of spending time with the project’s creator). musicians do this right now. for someone like imogen heap, it has become a part of her travel and performance schedule to spend time with her fans, who are, in many ways, her direct benefactors.
filmmakers can give away their time to spend with their followers / fans / supporters in a variety of ways. the producer ted hope (adventureland, american splendor, the savages, happiness, the ice storm) does so by way of his blog over at truly free film. that said, i can quickly see how that might also lead to a glut on the market (a whole lot of directors and producers all of sudden ready to give away their time…)
which brings me back to the reality of the music industry. as i mentioned, most musicians make most of their money by touring and the merchandising that comes with touring, and this seems to apply to well-established musicians as well as much lesser known acts.
should filmmakers do this?
should filmmakers hit the road with their film tucked under the arm?
why not?
what if more filmmakers no longer aspired to release their film on a national scale and instead, cultivated an online following while touring the country with their film, visiting cinemas for one or two night events? there, they’d make themselves available afterwards for q & a, sell merchandise related to the film, create an event out of it, perhaps with live music or some sort of community fundraising built in, and then move on to the next town.
didn’t the documentary film beautiful losers do something like this? and, in some ways, the cinema tuesdays events at the montalban in los angeles, which are put on by flux, seem to tap into a similar spirit… and here, the events are always free of charge.
IF IT WORKS FOR THE MUSEUMS, WILL IT WORK FOR FILM?
the merchandising approach could be similar to how museums manage it. filmmakers would be advised to take a look at the way museums have staked their financial survival for the future.
the museums have the right model, as a friend of mine points out, by linking the user experience that is associated with the headlining exhibit with the retail experience. museums emphasize their merchandising over their admissions fee – though, in most cases, the admissions fees are varied and priced according to demand. frequently, the merchandise on offer is directly related to the exhibit, is relatively rare in number, and only available for a limited period of time. this makes the merchandise that much more desirable.
so, while the product is not free, it is relatively low cost, and it is the souvenirs from the experience that will cost the consumer a lot more. in this case, the product is the user experience, available at a relatively low cost through the price of admission, but the souvenirs from the experience is where the museum (and hopefully the artist/exhibitors) will make some of their money.
i’ve always found this particular retail experience to be somewhat distasteful – though, i guess, as others have pointed out, if this is the way that museums need to survive, then i will support that. will the same work for film?
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUSIC AND FILM
of course, a very significant difference between the two industries is the cost of production. while it is true that both the costs of producing music as well as producing film has been significantly reduced over the years, there’s no comparison between the two. it is still far more expensive to make film and therefore, compared to the start-up musician, there is still a huge mountain of expenses that a film needs to recover before a filmmaker can even generate a profit on his or her project.
as long as this is the case, then filmmakers will be reluctant to give away their product for free.
but what if there is no other way?
LO-FI VERSUS HI-FI
would filmmakers consider releasing a low-resolution version of their film for free while charging for the HD version?
this could be achieved through a variety of means, notably, via wireless handheld media as well as via services like Apple TV.
. . . . . .
that’s all i have for now. there’s much to consider while i take a breather…
to be continued….
note: the thoughts above are part of an ongoing discussion that i’ve been having with a number of friends and colleagues, who have made valuable contributions, without which i would not have been able to put together this piece. this document represents the first effort to consolidate all of these thoughts. thanks!
Post a Comment