How do indies get +$200K funding?

[Joel Chu]

Personal experience with iTune - it's impossible to get in (one of the film we tried - the final 10 of Oscar Shorts 2009) no luck. My conclusion is - if you are not majors or mini majors or some where near the mini majors. There won't be a deal. I can understand why they are doing this and it's the core of Apple - Quality Control.

But take a look at what Amazon is doing, IMDB, withoutabox and the whole deal of DVD packaging and digital download. I think Amazon is what the "high street" is. The only problem at the moment is - there is no clear strategy what this is going to be (at least for the film makers, we don't know what Amazon have in their mind)

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Amazon has a very bad royalty ratio.

It's clear that such a system must include a last.fm/ilike.com mechanism. If you like Lost in Translation you might also like Virgin Suicides. You need maybe about 10 viewers, but after that it should work, maybe not as good as with music, but good enough. Together with a short trailer you can judge well.

 

[Joel Chu]

Amazon has a very bad royalty ratio.

It's clear that such a system must include a last.fm/ilike.com mechanism. If you like Lost in Translation you might also like Virgin Suicides. You need maybe about 10 viewers, but after that it should work, maybe not as good as with music, but good enough. Together with a short trailer you can judge well.

I think you have it backward. Amazon is the first website in the world that create the "like" system (I did apply their system developer jobs back about 5 years ago, and it was tracking related software they were building.). The problem is - they have tons of feature but not very obvious to end users.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

I think you have it backward. Amazon is the first website in the world that create the "like" system (I did apply their system developer jobs back about 5 years ago, and it was tracking related software they were building.). The problem is - they have tons of feature but not very oblivious to end users.

I don't mean this shop recommendations, I always found them very badly done (basically not much more like a list of books of the same author I ordered with my last buy). Their algorithms seem not even close to last.fm or pandora radio.

 

[Joel Chu]

yeah that is true. They use a mass product sales index, the exact sub-algorithm is unknown (like what factor in the average etc).

I think it's always the case. Someone started it and the other look at it, then think to themselves - hey I can make it better

But there is a problem though - like the other REDer suggest that mix the high street with indie - we need the high street first. Some place that is house hold name to hold this titles.

I read an article about the Netflix found out the longer the user state with the site , the more title the user rent - they tend to discover new things that is outside their norm. This is indeed good for the niche products.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I read an article about the Netflix found out the longer the user state with the site , the more title the user rent - they tend to discover new things that is outside their norm. This is indeed good for the niche products.

I think what would really make a difference is if indie filmmakers started promoting each others stuff and getting paid well when a purchase is made.

Let's say Johnny has a new movie. He wisely spends $50k on crafty internet marketing... but he's only got one movie to sell. So let's say he sells his movie and gets $20. He's spent a fair amount of marketing time and money to sell that one movie.

Johnny should have a way to recommend other movies he thinks fans of his movie would like and he should get $10 of the $20 for that sale. Johnny doesn't schlep movies he doesn't like so he's gains credibility. In two months.. while Johnny is writing his next script he sends an email to the 10,000 people that bought his movie that he just saw 3 more really great movies and everyone should check them out. He makes 500 sales at $10 each for his cut.

Imagine 1000 filmmakers doing that. They become their own Netflix or iTunes. The problem with Netflix is filmmakers don't make enough money simply by having their film on the site. The best they could probably hope for is to use Netflix to rent movies that have ads for new movies and alternative cuts only available via their website.

We already pay distributors etc. $9 out of $10 right now. If I could get anyone (fan, friend, filmmaker - whoever) to sell my movies for a 50% cut it's a good deal for both of us.

You could probably do something like that with Clickbank right now. The key is to get filmmakers thinking differently about sales and distribution.

JPP and all the other art film directors (and their fans) should be working together to get their work out profitably. It's just an organization issue.

(food for thought - since DVDs can be rented Netflix can buy 100 copies of your movie from your website and start renting your movie thus hurting your retail sales. I've had people tell me this happened to them. If your movie is download or streaming only it can't be purchased like a DVD and then rented.)

 

[jpp]

Even if these new media models become viable and the internet in 2012 is a real alternative to both theatrical and DVD distribution, you'll be competing against your contemporaries of similar means all over the world, last year's Hollywood features, and eventually, the entire digitized film library, starting at around year 1900.

Even if these downloads are $.99, how are you going to persuade anyone to spend 90 minutes watching yours, in the absence of stars and reputation (yours)?

The only answer is, you somehow manage to create interest in the real world first. Meaning you do exactly what people have to do now: try to get into the better festivals where your film will get the sort of notice it could never get as one among tens of thousands of others. And once there, you hope you drum up enough interest to get a theatrical run or, at least, enough interest to spur $.99 downloads.

But nothing has really changed. A highly selective online festival would present the same difficulties as one in Park City, Telluride or New York: very hard to get in, competing against 7-figure features with stars which arrive with an army of publicists, dozens of other features from all over world, all of them with better production values than yours, etc.

Indie film -- if that's what we're talking about -- is not profitable for anyone in the food chain, except those who receive salaries, rent equipment or charge producing fees. As a business, it's never been profitable, outside a few flukes. What it may give you is the opportunity to make another non-Hollywood film, or to make commercial movies in Hollywood. But nobody makes money from indie film on a consistent basis, enough to actually stay in business. Even distributors, who tend to be outright thieves, can't stay in business.

I know what you're saying: why make something you can't sell? What kind of insane business model is that? Answer: it isn't a business model. But that's the way the business works, because multitudes want "in". So they have to do things which, on the face of it, don't make business sense, in the same way people will work as interns, for nothing. And the decisions sometimes do pay off -- for individuals. But as a business model, it's hopeless. You can't eat.

If you mean to be in business, to make movies on a sustainable basis, I think you want to be making genre pictures, where you know the market and the purchase price, and there's not much doubt you'll get your money back, plus a margin. You can also try to go after the Hollywood market on the cheap, but the returns on that ambition are poor as well, and the route is usually the same as for the arty stuff -- the festival circuit.

Lars von Trier, the subject of another current thread, owns a very viable production company called Zentropa, with many prestigious credits. But without the Danish government, no such company would exist, and its many films, some quite notable, would never have been produced. So there are other ways to do it. But not in the U.S.of A.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Even if these downloads are $.99, how are you going to persuade anyone to spend 90 minutes watching yours, in the absence of stars and reputation (yours)?.

I don't believe people see movies primarily to see stars. I think distributors and festivals want stars. I don't think average folks give much of a shit. From Star Wars to My Big Fat Greek Wedding and many, many TV shows... a LOT of movies have worked without stars. And a lot of movies with stars bomb. I call complete bullshit on the concept of "stars" mattering in a large way to average viewers outside of maybe the top 5 names in hollywood.

I don't think festivals matter at all to average viewers. That's just industry stuff and I'm talking about forgetting about the industry.

So what is it? Ultimately it's a the story concept and recommendations from friends. Last night someone told me about a movie I'd never heard of and I got on my iPhone, went to Netflix, found it and bumped it to number one.

If you're literally telling me JPP that you don't think 20,000 people out of the millions on this planet will spend $20 for your little movie then yeah... you shouldn't be in this business. I think .99 cent downloads might be 3 years away. $25 niche DVD sales are here now.

I'm not trying to argue that art flicks can sustain large budgets. I'm arguing that if you aggregated art films and those filmmakers banded together in their marketing efforts they could raise awareness and build something sustainable.

As far as these people competing against each other... no, they'd make good money when they sell a friend's product. The key to my entire idea is you need to be able to sell more than just your own movie. That's why studios work. They have hundreds of movies they cross promote all the time. Indie filmmakers should be selling each others stuff and taking a 50% cut when they do it. That math is way better than current industry math.

Unless you get a big fat minimum guarantee from a distributor you're better off keeping your rights to sell your own movie online and eliminating their right to do so.

 

[jpp]

What kind of movies -- exactly -- are you talking about?

It sounds as if you hope to reach audiences who don't demand what they get from Hollywood (stars, production value, event coverage, etc.), but who nonetheless want mass-market style entertainment.

Or have I misunderstood?

 

[jpp]

If you're literally telling me JPP that you don't think 20,000 people out of the millions on this planet will spend $20 for your little movie then yeah... you shouldn't be in this business. I think .99 cent downloads might be 3 years away. $25 niche DVD sales are here now.

I'm not trying to argue that art flicks can sustain large budgets. I'm arguing that if you aggregated art films and those filmmakers banded together in their marketing efforts they could raise awareness and build something sustainable.

Unfortunately, 20,000 is a large number in the indie world, even with big publicity and name players. Soderbergh didn't make that theatrical quota for "Bubble", and "Ballast" fell short by about 15,000, despite Sundance prizes, universally fine reviews and free media attention. And that's at $10 a pop, not $20.

The *potential* audiences for anything half-way decent may well be 20,000, but finding that audience in a sea of competition and with prohibitively high distribution and publicity costs is the difficulty. I don't see how the internet reduces the difficulty.

As I say, it's an endeavor, not a business.

 

[Joel Kaye]

What kind of movies -- exactly -- are you talking about?

It sounds as if you hope to reach audiences who don't demand what they get from Hollywood (stars, production value, event coverage, etc.), but who nonetheless want mass-market style entertainment.

Or have I misunderstood?

I'm saying there's a living to be made regardless of what Hollywood does.

Movie audiences don't "demand" anything. Hollywood Studios and every other filmmaker have to create demand where none existed a moment ago. There is no inherent human demand for any movie. Or the circus. Or a video game. It's all marketed.

No matter what they do, and all the stars they bring and the millions of dollars on all kinds of whacky advertising... all that is trumped when this happens:

friend: "Hey Joel, I saw this movie and I immediately thought of you. You'll love it."

Joel: "Who's in it?"

friend: "no one - it's a foreign film and it's subtitled... but you have to see it."

Joel: "What's it about?"

Friend: "This crazy set of people... You won't believe the shit that happens... I'm not going to spoil it, just get it."

Joel: "OK. I'll see it this week and then we'll talk about it."

That happens to me about once a week.

This is how you sell any movie. Any genre, any story... any, anything. The Internet - and social networking and digital delivery is perfect for that kind of sales pitch. I want to give that kid or fellow filmmaker or actor half of retail every time he sells a movie to a friend like that. Or his list of 10,000 fans. If Tarentino blogged about some indie movie he loved that movie would sell.

Ultimately, I do think movies with very compelling story situations that some set of people immediately identifies with are the easiest to sell and will cause people to start talking after they see it.

I think the problem with a lot of art movies is they simply don't evoke enough of an emotional reaction from the viewer to get them to talk/blog about it. That's my definition of a bad movie because movies exist to evoke emotions.

 

[Chris Pickle]

Even if these new media models become viable and the internet in 2012 is a real alternative to both theatrical and DVD distribution, you'll be competing against your contemporaries of similar means all over the world, last year's Hollywood features, and eventually, the entire digitized film library, starting at around year 1900.

Even if these downloads are $.99, how are you going to persuade anyone to spend 90 minutes watching yours, in the absence of stars and reputation (yours)?

The only answer is, you somehow manage to create interest in the real world first. Meaning you do exactly what people have to do now: try to get into the better festivals where your film will get the sort of notice it could never get as one among tens of thousands of others. And once there, you hope you drum up enough interest to get a theatrical run or, at least, enough interest to spur $.99 downloads.

But nothing has really changed. A highly selective online festival would present the same difficulties as one in Park City, Telluride or New York: very hard to get in, competing against 7-figure features with stars which arrive with an army of publicists, dozens of other features from all over world, all of them with better production values than yours, etc.

Indie film -- if that's what we're talking about -- is not profitable for anyone in the food chain, except those who receive salaries, rent equipment or charge producing fees. As a business, it's never been profitable, outside a few flukes. What it may give you is the opportunity to make another non-Hollywood film, or to make commercial movies in Hollywood. But nobody makes money from indie film on a consistent basis, enough to actually stay in business. Even distributors, who tend to be outright thieves, can't stay in business.

I know what you're saying: why make something you can't sell? What kind of insane business model is that? Answer: it isn't a business model. But that's the way the business works, because multitudes want "in". So they have to do things which, on the face of it, don't make business sense, in the same way people will work as interns, for nothing. And the decisions sometimes do pay off -- for individuals. But as a business model, it's hopeless. You can't eat.

If you mean to be in business, to make movies on a sustainable basis, I think you want to be making genre pictures, where you know the market and the purchase price, and there's not much doubt you'll get your money back, plus a margin. You can also try to go after the Hollywood market on the cheap, but the returns on that ambition are poor as well, and the route is usually the same as for the arty stuff -- the festival circuit.

Lars von Trier, the subject of another current thread, owns a very viable production company called Zentropa, with many prestigious credits. But without the Danish government, no such company would exist, and its many films, some quite notable, would never have been produced. So there are other ways to do it. But not in the U.S.of A.

Wow... you've embraced the dark side. It seemed like you championed film as pure art with the business only making a muck of it. Or maybe you're just stating fact and not endorsing it?

It isn't a business model, but without a business model, work will never be seen or even come close to recouping expense. I know you mentioned before that no other art required going around and selling one's self on Charlie Rose or taking meetings with your hair combed and your shoes shinned, but a novelist can start writing for 5 dollars or less. Mostly the same for painting, and almost as cheap even for, say, photography...

Obviously that's the horrible conundrum of the film biz, and that's why producers come in to package C stars and genre scripts. It's fear based, and they will make non-creative decisions to somewhat insure against the budget.

I know a very successful singer-songwriter that has had much interest from the major labels, and all that. One day he tells me about an epiphany he had. "there is no music business" "there is no deal to be had" The industry doesn't really exist anymore. Even a "deal" is just a loan against your future potential. The deals and major success in the old school idea of it are so far and few between as to statistically be zero. You'd have as much of a return selling CD at your shows then through a record deal.

I sometimes think that about the film biz. There is no success in art films and the only way to succeed in the "mainstrem" biz side is to somewhat abandoned your artistic principles. I hope there is something in-between where ones art can peek past / through a C star and a genre script. I certainly have no faith in some revolutionary internet dist model for indie / art films. You could quadruple your audience but you'd still only be at 4

We see examples of serious filmmakers making serious work in Hollywood, but again, so rare as to be statistically......

(and JPP, no negativity pointed at you in the slightest. I like hearing your stand against aspects of the mainstream model. Keep it up)

 

[Joel Kaye]

I know you mentioned before that no other art required going around and selling one's self on Charlie Rose or taking meetings with your hair combed and your shoes shinned, but a novelist can start writing for 5 dollars or less.

I know some authors and they tell me that in order to get published they need a marketing plan in place. They're asked "what's your platform"? Authors do the radio circuit and book tours and if they win the lottery they get on Oprah.

Painters have showings and try to get exposure in Art Magazines. A good friend of mine edits a national new art magazine. Believe me, those artists are marketing their work.

There is literally no creative person that makes money on their art that is not required to market their work.

I don't have a solution for the person who wants to spend a bunch of other people's money making stuff no one will pay to own or watch. Therapy or prozak come to mind.

 

[jpp]

Joel,

I don't want to rehash it forever, but I don't see a business in what you intend. The indie side is full of people who seek mass-market success and are making mass-market movies on the cheap, in the hope they'll find that pay-off. They're "indies" only because they use the indie mechanisms, like festivals, for lack (to date) of any other marketing mechanism which will lead to theatrical distribution. And sometimes it works, to a lesser or greater degree. I think Mark Pederson, who's remained silent here out of tact and a great deal of self-restraint(??), was involved with one such production which got distribution, but showed no profit to the producers.

On the whole, it doesn't work. You can't compete with Hollywood, with a tiny fraction of Hollywood resources. In about 100 years of narrative cinema, one home movie (Blair Witch) did have a full-blown theatrical gross. And if you want to wait another 100 years, maybe you'll be number 2. But this graveyard is full of corpses, people have been trying this for years, and failing. Anyway, that's my view of it. I'd try to join Hollywood, rather than try to compete with it, if you want to make mass-market entertainment.

========
It's also true, as you point out, that artists in many fields have to sell and market their work. The difference is that they're typically marketing the material *after* it's been created. What distinguishes the U.S. from other countries is, they support *both* their novelists *and* their filmmakers. We support neither, but since paper is cheaper than film, we have much better novelists than indie filmmakers.
========

I sometimes think that about the film biz. There is no success in art films and the only way to succeed in the "mainstrem" biz side is to somewhat abandoned your artistic principles. I hope there is something in-between where ones art can peek past / through a C star and a genre script. I certainly have no faith in some revolutionary internet dist model for indie / art films. You could quadruple your audience but you'd still only be at 4

I'd say that "success" is simply getting the film you want made, and then going bankrupt. Compromising what you see as your principles (or mine, or his) usually isn't very effective anyway.

I don't have a solution for the person who wants to spend a bunch of other people's money making stuff no one will pay to own or watch. Therapy or prozak come to mind.

What you describe here is often called "art", and if you don't live in the U.S., your government may help support its production. Prozac or something stronger may also work, however, in free-market paradises.

 

[Tom Lowe]

jpp is a doomsayer, but he has acknowledged in the past that it IS possible to breakthrough, just extremely, extremely rare. which is true, of course.

the counter-argument to jpp is the movie "Once," which was filmed on DV for like $100,000 and made it to the bigtime because it had a nice little story and some good, catchy music. plus it had indie cred for real. imdb says that film grossed nearly 10 million in the US alone.

but anyone wanting to emulate this type of success should know the odds -- they are monumentally slim. obviously, you have to believe in yourself and be that very, very rare person who has talent and a lot of luck.

 

[jpp]

Doomsayer indeed: "Once" came in at substantially less than $100K, at least that's the PR line, but it was 100% financed by the Irish government, for whatever that information is worth.

Lots of people liked it, I didn't, but anyway....

 

[Tom Lowe]

Doomsayer indeed: "Once" came in at substantially less than $100K, at least that's the PR line, but it was 100% financed by the Irish government, for whatever that information is worth.

Lots of people liked it, I didn't, but anyway....

Are you sure that it was financed by the government there? I've never heard that. Anyway, 100K is actually low enough that it's possible to raise that kind of loot through friends, family, loans, savings, grants, credit cards, etc.

I have no problem with local governments funding art. I don't think in the United States, though, that the federal gov should be doing it.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I really do think it's fairly simple. Getting back to my "Great Film" theory, if you are able to somehow get all the elements working in perfect harmony, creating a film that many people will connect with and then you have the connections, the skills to market it, get it to festivals, etc. your odds are a lot better. Trouble is, it's really hard to make a great film. I think many are able to make good films, ones that are technically proficient or perhaps have some fresh ideas, but you need all of the components there for it to have a chance to escape Indieland. The film needs to become "Must See". It needs to spread like wildfire. Of course, there is grey area too, films that are not great but for one reason or another make money.

I think distribution will evolve over the next few years. Our home theatres will be merged with our computer media management systems and we'll be downloading high quality content from the internet and not even thinking twice about it. This will impact distribution models. I would expect companies like Netflix to start slowly moving away from DVD and BluRay and focusing more on download rentals and sales. This could also open up avenues for self distribution with social media playing a key role. Filmmakers building communities around their work, spreading the word via blogs, twitters, facebook, etc. We've only tapped into it a little bit at this point. I think it will expand far more in the next couple of years. Now what that translates into in terms of money, we'll have to see.

Bottom line. Success can sometimes come down to how much you want it. If you've made a good film and have yet to make a dollar, chances are you haven't marketed hard enough. You haven't explored every possibility. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of phone calls, lots of networking. And in the end, you still may not get the deal you hoped for. As Wayne Gretzky once said "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

 

[jpp]

Are you sure that it was financed by the government there? I've never heard that. Anyway, 100K is actually low enough that it's possible to raise that kind of loot through friends, family, loans, savings, grants, credit cards, etc.

I have no problem with local governments funding art. I don't think in the United States, though, that the federal gov should be doing it.

It was a local arts' council grant, 30 thousand pounds. And really, this one could've been made for the price of feeding the actors and crew. The money might well have been raised privately, but the point is, it wasn't.

Anyway, since I truly hated that film, drawing conclusions from it is not for me to do.

 

[Yannick Hagman]

Lars von Trier was a porn producer, director and shooter. I guess that's the way he has financed his early films mostly. I think the guy is very overestimated by filmcritics, btw.