How to make money from internet distribution of movies?

[Johann Schulz]

Kaya, that's more like a scene, but, it's true. It's what the viewer remembers when they leave the theatre or the livingroom. Was I moved by, and want to think about, and discuss these characters with my friends, or do I just want to move on?

I also think making a movie is a lot like forming a rock band, albeit for a much shorter time. Intense, focused and connected must the players be. But supergroups can fail when they record an album. Put the best hockey players on one team and they may stumble into obscurity. Put the best A actors in the top five roles in a film and mix it up in the blender. Why has it worked? Why has it failed? Drugs? Family? Hangers? Script meddling I think is often the culprit, or a pushed script that isn't ready, for the idea... Time is money and so movies as much as ever tend to shoot themselves in the foot, even when magic appears....so...fleetingly.........

I tend to take my time. Thank god for the lottery wins!

 

[Johann Schulz]

I must say sorry at this point 'cause karapetkov started this thread about internet distribution in particular, and I've gone kinda film student on him. My apologies.

 

[Joel Kaye]

In the model I am talking about, you would rather be a top link on Digg than an official selection at Sundance.

I think you're on the right track and that's how it will be done. And it's exactly what I said a few posts ago. How many movies have you successfully gotten to be the top link in Digg? Sundance might be a piece of cake by comparison.

I know a filmmaker (and web guru) who's just shot a film and has done exactly what you are saying - targeted Digg. And we sat there talking about what seemed to help and what didn't - and we came the conclusion it was really tough to do. Another friend of mine is a google expert (and I know everything he knows). There are ways to work the system, but almost no one really knows them - and you certainly won't find the real techniques down at the local SEOworld website.

But this discussion is miles past the average filmmaker. If you're really that good then you fit into my category of "the few" who will be successful. And people will hire you to get them traffic for their film - because it's way easier to make a film than to sell it.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

[O-oh, I see the future again... ]

...That's where [future] Internet promoters of media will come into the equation.

Current labels and film\music distributors will be transformed into promoters - companies with enough cash, who will advertise artists and will get % of their [eventual] profit...

But I believe that you'll still have a bigger chance to make a "miracle" on your own compared to what you could do before the Internet.

I believe...

 

[burnie]

Joel: I knew we were on the same page here.

 

[jpp]

Insisting that it's harder to sell a movie than make one is just stating the obvious: that there are more movies than screens.

Seems to me you guys have gone off the tracks. Hacking google or digg isn't going to solve the problem of bad and/or unmarketable movies, particularly when those movies don't exist yet and haven't demonstrated an earned right to be seen by anyone.

Do it for love or go to dental school instead, because otherwise it's the worst waste of time imaginable.

 

[Steve Sanacore]

There will definitely be opportunities that we can't even imagine yet because of the internet and it's ability to connect the creator directly with his audience.

The key is to get people to watch your film and to pay something for doing so.

Maybe Netflix online and iTunes are the major movie distributors of the future?

 

[jpp]

The key is to get people to watch your film and to pay something for doing so.

That goes without saying, but it's probably not the key. The key is making something worth seeing, or which people want to see, outside (I assume?) the commercial production and distribution networks.

For the life of me, I don't get this. You're all worried about making money from movies which don't exist and which, for all I know, aren't even being dreamed of. Why should anyone want to see that movie? What entitles you to the audience's attention, and its money? What distinguishes your unmade movie from other movies, made or unmade? Seems to me you're looking for a distribution mechanism which is independent of the product. That's normal enough in the clothing or dry goods business, but if the idea is to sell commodities, there are far more reliable careers than the movies.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

I paid for an independent movie recently online. Wanted to share it but didn't bother to download/ copy because a) wanted to support the independent and b) at that price its hardly worth it. For niche markets this model works well. Say you have Europe, North America, and percentages of other countries with very little distribution costs and you nail a nice niche then you will make a nice sum in my personal opinion. The web will hurt the big studios more than it will the indies. Word of mouth will be the big one and topical features/shorts. It was like i wanted to share the movie i watched and passed the word on. A bit like youtube...
I think the best way will be via distribution sites but also doing your own marketing. Topical subjects of interest...People will pay for it if its good.

 

[burnie]

I also think it's moot to say "make something compelling and watchable" as I think that has to assumed to discuss marketing. No one sets out to make a film that they think is trash. Making a watchable film is what starts the process in the beginning. A bad product won't thrive under system other than "luck". We are just discussing the differences between marketing marketable films using the internet model vs the traditional model.

Insisting that it's harder to sell a movie than make one is just stating the obvious: that there are more movies than screens.

No there aren't. This is a thread about internet distribution. There are more "screens" than movies in this model. Everybody still keeps bringing the old system into the new. There are no movie theaters on the internet. If you come into a thread about internet distribution and start talking about 3,000 screen releases... well, you may as well go to dental school. Or Sundance.

 

[jpp]

I also think it's moot to say "make something compelling and watchable" as I think that has to assumed to discuss marketing. No one sets out to make a film that they think is trash..... We are just discussing the differences between marketing marketable films using the internet model vs the traditional model.

Your position might make sense for a studio major; a certain commercial appeal can be assumed, the studio's product has proven distribution potential and the internet represents just another distribution vehicle.

But in indie filmmaking, mass marketability CAN'T be assumed, which is what makes these movies indies in the first place, rather than commercial properties financed at Hollywood budgets. The question, as you pose it, is unreal. And, judging by Hollywood grosses, virtually no non-Hollywood film is marketable, unless the dream comes true, and the internet uncovers a vast demand for formerly unmarketable movies.

This is a thread about internet distribution. There are more "screens" than movies in this model..... There are no movie theaters on the internet. If you come into a thread about internet distribution and start talking about 3,000 screen releases... well, you may as well go to dental school. Or Sundance.

Internet or no internet, there are a limited number of buyers of movies. If you believe the internet offers a limitless pool of buyers, including buyers of unknown movies, then joelnet is wrong: it should be easier to sell movies than make them. But it's got to be one or the other. The "more films than screens" formulation strikes me as the more likely assessment, for lack of any evidence of that vast buying pool, particularly for American indies. To date, it's not even clear that there's much internet piracy in these films.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Do it for love or go to dental school instead, because otherwise it's the worst waste of time imaginable.

I'm not saying you shouldn't make what you love.

For the life of me, I don't get this. You're all worried about making money from movies which don't exist and which, for all I know, aren't even being dreamed of. Why should anyone want to see that movie?

This is exactly what I've been talking about. Seems like I've been repeating that people need to make sellable movies. That's job 1. And that starts at the concept level, before the screenplay is even written. Is the concept compelling? I think Katzenberg is right to say a perfect execution of a mediocre idea won't sell but an average execution of a great idea will.

If a person has some business sense they won't waste their life perfectly crafting mediocre story ideas. It's my contention most filmmakers can't even comprehend this idea.

It appears you might think Hollywood and Indie style movies are mutually exclusive somehow. Hollywood sells stuff like Closer, Crash, Hustle and Flow, Adaptation, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind... and on and on. Isn't Fight Club more indie style?

To me the opportunity lies in making great movies for niche audiences. The Internet is great at aggregating niches.

You can't just make an "indie" movie. Just like Hollywood, we have 10 seconds to try to get someone to see the trailer.

 

[jpp]

It appears you might think Hollywood and Indie style movies are mutually exclusive somehow. Hollywood sells stuff like Closer, Crash, Hustle and Flow, Adaptation, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind... and on and on. Isn't Fight Club more indie style?

Hollywood certainly does make films that don't fit commercial formula, no disputing that. But how will indies in return achieve some of the sheen and commercial appeal usually associated with Hollywood, but without money, if they expect to compete?

For years, indie film has been full of people who think they know a secret. They think they know how to spend a fraction of what Hollywood does, and yet still make lots of money in the mass market. But apart from the occasional miracle, it just doesn't work.

As I see it, indie film isn't a business, because virtually no filmmakers make anything from it and there's no market demand for the movies. At best, it may facilitate getting paid in the future or open up opportunities. And there's no evidence yet that the internet is an alternative to the theatrical or video market, either as a sales or distribution medium.

Even the handful of theatrical indie hits which made a name for themselves and their directors didn't in most cases make much money for the distributors. Seems to me that making these films is more a rite of passage, a proof to the industry that you can make a film which resembles a "real" feature. Unless, of course, you've got a serious filmmaker whose real interest is making the film, not making money or creating opportunities other than the one he or she is engaged in. But even that kind of virtue has its limits, in the movies. You may need money, to achieve vision.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Unless, of course, you've got a serious filmmaker whose real interest is making the film, not making money or creating opportunities other than the one he or she is engaged in.

That's a very important question you got there.

What is our primary motivation to get into filmmaking?

Is it money or something else?

Frankly, if it is money - better go into finance or the oil industry, not filmmaking. Too risky investment of time, effort and money.

Which shows me that the title I've given to the thread looks a little too commercial.

The right question would be:


How to make a living from Internet distribution of movies?

...

Nevertheless, the "making money" part is a better grabber.

 

[Roberto B]

The right question would be:


How to make a living from Internet distribution of movies?

...

:turned:

 

[Todd Folts]

maybe i missed something somewhere, and if i am way off base (and sound like i am rediscovering the wheel) then please forgive...

the $$$ through internet distribution would be made by the website, selling its traffic. how many hits a day does it take (sustained over a period of time) to attract big money? i dont know. then the website redistributes that money to the films that are bringing in that traffic. (by dowload/viewing numbers?) the more traffic a film generates, the more money it would make. Each film would be on the website for a period of time (4-6 weeks, just a number), which at the end of that time the website and filmmaker could rethink their arrangment. its on the website to attract viewers (in order to sell a lot of traffic) as well as attract distributers (big payout if a film is picked up) If a film gets pick up by a big distributer, the website would get a cut. one or two films being picked up would attract better films. the website could make the initial run free (4-6 weeks?) and then charge for a longer run...

i know there are tons of details (how long, % of cuts, etc...) that would need worked out.

just some ideas....

 

[Todd Folts]

plus another thing occured to me...

how much would advertisers pay, if a BIG film (using an extreme example: batman) were released on the web for 24 hours. free. have something like 1000 (just an arbitrary number) passes. deal is you would have to sit through 10 minutes of adverts before the film. the website would have banners. just sell the snot out of it. (evil evil evil.....) password gets you in, watch film, and 24 hours later its pulled.....

you still would get people in the theaters, but it would create a HUGE buzz for the website...

 

[number6]

plus another thing occured to me...

how much would advertisers pay, if a BIG film (using an extreme example: batman) were released on the web for 24 hours. free. have something like 1000 (just an arbitrary number) passes. deal is you would have to sit through 10 minutes of adverts before the film. the website would have banners. just sell the snot out of it. (evil evil evil.....) password gets you in, watch film, and 24 hours later its pulled.....

you still would get people in the theaters, but it would create a HUGE buzz for the website...

Hyalite, your ideas sound uncomplicated and fair for all involved, to me. It would be similar in some ways to having a Film Festival-on-demand. Keep thinking. You're good at it.

 

[burnie]

I still say the best model is to have your own site, post your own movie on it and sell copies of the DVD through the site. If people go to some other site to watch your movie, you can never build an audience and you have no way to draw them back to your store.

Once the movie gets a certain amount of views, take that info and use it to directly sell your movie to retail outlets and (if you wish) TV and VOD services.

 

[burnie]

Frankly, if it is money - better go into finance or the oil industry, not filmmaking. Too risky investment of time, effort and money.

I resent this a little bit. We're in a discussion about the internet business model, so of course we're going to mention money. The more money you make on one project, the more you have for the next, which can make you independent of outside production financing as well as freeing you from third party distribution. That's the perfect scenario, in my opinion.

Don't want to make money? Then make your movie, encode in QucikTime and post it online for free. End of thread. Why even have a discussion about it?