 The cover of Jon Reiss’ new book, “Think Outside the Box Office.”Times of crises lend themselves to manifestos and I am going to use this opportunity to propose my own. This manifesto will speak to those filmmakers who are uncertain about the distribution and marketing of their films and want to know what alternatives exist to traditional forms. It will also speak to our partners in the industry such as distribution companies, festivals, guilds, funding entities and the like.
1. KNOW YOUR FILM/KNOW YOURSELF
EVERY FILM IS DIFFERENT AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH
The studio model of distribution was created because it made sense for large mass market films, and for a time it worked for some independent films as well.
However each film is different, and many independent films did not fair well within the studio machine – because they were not marketed to their unique audience.
It is best to determine what distribution and marketing path makes sense for your particular film and to do so as early in the process as possible. This plan/strategy will change over time and will evolve organically as your film evolves but you need a starting place.
Going through this process will not only save you a lot of grief, but will help you achieve success for your film whatever that may be.
Before embarking on releasing your film you should evaluate your film and your needs. Depending on how you release your film, it can cost a lot of time and money.
Look yourself in the eye, take a cold hard look at the film and determine how much time and money you are willing to spend on the release of it. Are you going to take a year or two of your life to devote to a full release including some form of theatrical, DVD, digital etc.
Also determine what type of film it is, even if it is brilliant, there might be only certain audiences that will take to it.
The point is to match the distribution path with the film, to balance your time releasing a film with the time needed to create new work.
2. CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARD MARKETING
As an iconoclastic, ex punk rock anarchist neo Marxist who most recently made a documentary about graffiti and the battle over visual public space, I feel that I have come about as far as anyone could come in this embrace of marketing.
I would argue that the biggest problem facing independent film is not one of distribution – it is one of marketing. It is one thing to put your film out into the world, it is another to get people to know about it, and want to watch it.
It is not a matter of changing your work to meet a supposed market. But to consider what kinds of audiences might be interested in your work and seek to cultivate them.
The artificial divide between art and commerce must be eliminated.
Most if not all filmmakers if they are truly honest with themselves, want as many people to watch their films as possible.
I propose that filmmakers view marketing as the way to connect with the audience of their film that either already exists, or should exist.
This process can be reverse engineered. Start with an underserved niche that spends money on content and create a product for them. This is a tried and true way that manufacturing (and much art) has been done for thousands of years. Are we so pure that we must be the only workers who eschew patterns of consumption? Even Michaelanglo and Davinci created work for Popes and Kings – and no one accused them of selling out. Somehow these artists managed to make this work their own.
In other words – embrace restrictions as a mother of invention and opportunity. This is not the solution for everyone, or every film – but it is something to consider.
3. DETERMINE YOUR AUDIENCES AND HOW TO REACH THEM FROM INCEPTION
Many independent filmmakers for many years have made films without thinking about who the audiences for their films might be. Or their ideas about audiences are much too general. Alternatively the studios have erred on the other side and catered to a mass audience and left any form of specialty taste behind.
But audience identification should be a constant process of discovery during the production (and prep, post and distribution) of your film. It is difficult to market to your audience if you don’t know who that audience is.
How will you reach those audiences?
How do those audiences consume media?
You should provide ways for your audience to consume media in the ways they desire.
START THE PROCESS AT INCEPTION
It can take a long time to engage your audience. As important as developing individual audience members are connections you can make with organizations that will help you expand your reach.
This audience engagement (aka marketing) will be much more organic if you integrate it into the whole life cycle of a film.
By starting during prep and production, you are allowing your audience to be involved in the creation of your work. This in turn invests them with the success of your film. This can happen through crowdsourcing of various creative aspects of the film or through crowdfunding the budget for the film. These engaged audience members will be active core promoters because they will feel a connection with your film.
Even if you are picked up by a distributor, any marketing work you do in advance will not only help you during your release, but might actually help you get stronger distribution deals than you would have otherwise. Having a robust email list, active Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts with many friends and followers is value.
Your fans exist. You just need to find them. The way you do that is through distribution and marketing.
4. WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED YOUR FILM, YOU ARE HALF DONE
Distribution and marketing can take as long and cost as much, or more than you spent on your film. The new 50/50 is not a revenue split but the mental shift that filmmakers must make about the filmmaking process.
Too many filmmakers have no resources for the second half of the process once they finish their films. It is a shame. Why make a brilliant wonderful film if you do not have the resources to get it to its audience.
This is not a hard and fast rule, remember all films are unique. But it is a good guideline when embarking on a project.
- Money for distribution and marketing should be budgeted for, raised and put into escrow. It is far better to have $50,000 to release a $50,000 film than to make a $100,000 film with no way of getting it to an audience.
- We must create new crew positions to be responsible for these tasks.
Just like you most likely did not make the film on your own, you should not be distributing and marketing the film on your own. I would argue that from now on, every film needs one person devoted to the distribution and marketing of the film from inception, just as they have a line producer, assistant director, or DP. Since it always helps for a crew person to have a title I propose the following:
The Producer of Marketing and Distribution or PMD
This producer needs to be integrated into the film production team itself. They are not responsible for the physical production of the film (because if they are – you and I know they will never do their distribution and marketing work).
-This article continues on the next page-
|
by Jon Reiss (November 17, 2009)
Thanks for a great post (and I say that from a photographer’s point of view) there’s so much multi media cross-over relevance and points that we discuss and develop over on http://www.newphtographics.org.
Key is leveraging the internet for what it’s really good at rather than bleating about what it’s not. Marketing,building communities,distribution - Excellent. Exclusivity - Bad.
Jonathan Worth
Blue Dot, To be clear, my original post was emphasizing Jon’s point of “embracing the changes in our industry and using them to spur creativity.” Who would have thought a Twitter account could amass 700,000 viewers in 3 months, let alone lead to a TV sitcom deal. That’s real change on the part of what an audience is willing to consider entertainment and creative on the part of the TV executive who looked to a non-traditional platform and could see it’s potential in another medium.
My statement, “it’s no longer he who has the money wins, but he who has the audience wins,” was again tied to the Twitter account example. The account holder’s investment was time, not money. At no or little cost to create his content and in very little time, he aggregated a sizable audience. It was that following (and the content too) which validated him to a TV producer with access to a network, a network that makes its money from ad rates based on audience size.
As for piracy, it’s a huge problem; it not only denies artists the ability to make a sustainable living from their creative works, it also prevents them from developing relationships with their audience. Relationships that will only grow in importance as new platforms, like Twitter, change how we relate to each other and our creative works.
Hey, my movie is so popular, it’s being bit torrented all over the world. Isn’t that cool? It’s so popular it’s everywhere… and yet, without a profit stream, how can I build my next $250k budget?
There is a real problem with this system. Whitewashing it by saying “It’s great to have people see your movie” does not pay the investors, or replace equipment. If this keeps up, movies are going to suck as bad as youtube. The day of the “self empowered” is about ready to kill another industry…..
@finndependent, 700K is an impressive number, though there’s no true measurement of whether that 700K continues to care. Your statement of “Bigger media outlets can only push the media, not make the audience like it.” is the same here. “Following” someone doesn’t necessarily mean the person truly “likes” it. But only time will tell whether the content translates onto the screen.
Pegu, Maxim Magazine editor or not, 700,000 viewers in 3 months is the achievement. Bigger media outlets can only push the media, not make the audience like it. Now the questions is can he turn them into loyal fans for what he’ll do next. Only his content will tell.
GOOD stuff—comprehensive, informative, enlightening and inspiring!
I truly appreciate your passion and purpose in sharing your knowledge, experience and wisdom with the collective creative community Mr. Reiss because you don;t have to; you want to.
Over the past year and change I’ve immersed myself in the business of film—waiting to produce and release my debut feature until the time was ‘right,’ and although the time spent has afforded me the fortunate opportunity to discover people like yourself—and Ted Hope, and Lance Weiler, and numerous others I now consider my mentors, there has been no better time for filmmakers in the illustrious and sordid history of filmmaking than right NOW.
Among the many industry titles on my wishlist of books to occupy my bookshelf, “Think Outside the Box Office” is undoubtedly one of them and will likely be my next purchase.
Thanks again! Best Wishes and continued success!!
Miles Maker
Writer/Director of “Brown Baby” (2010)
The totally FREE movie you can share, remix, re-use and rediscover!
DONATE on IndieGoGo: http://www.indiegogo.com/brown-baby
“Brown Baby” Website http://www.brownbabymovie.com
“Brown Baby” on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/brownbabymovie
“Brown Baby” on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/brownbabymovie
@finndependent, the question is whether this kid’s little hobby is really repeatable. I give more credit for him finding big media outlets to spread the word since his tweets would probably have fallen into the void of bits and bytes if he wasn’t a Maxim Magazine editor.
That always helps.
“It is about embracing the changes in our industry that are facing all of us— and using them to spur new creativity. ”
The most recent example of these industry changes forming new creative pathways is “Shit My Dads Says,” on Twitter. Yes, I know it’s not a movie looking for distribution, but as moviemakers we’ve all pitched our ideas to investors with the hope of getting funding. Here’s a guy who tweets 140 characters based on what his dad says and lands a sitcom deal with CBS Television. Within 3 months of tweeting he gained 700,000 viewers, that’s more than some cable channels. It’s no longer he/she who has the money wins; it’s he/she who has the audience wins.