Is there a market for webisodes?

[PatrickW]

I feel in the end the current state of affairs in the indy market will continue to propagate themselves as long as there is a lop-sided proportion of individual content creators (i.e., directors) compared to content distributors and producers.

The chief problem here is that with every indy model of production, you end up with the content creators themselves re-inventing the distribution wheel. For instance, JNFilms, you wrote that you may have to create your own advertising revenue model, mimicking the advertising model of TWIT. In the end though it's going to be an advertising infrastructure that you create, customized for your production, and on the whole you will most likely not be spending the money, resources, or making the investment to propogate that infrastructure in a ready-made package for other productions. Obviously the folks from TWIT have not pre-packaged their revenue model for others besides themselves if productions are having to mimic their model from square-one.

So in the end we're really in a catch-22 situation here vs. major studio content. With the "everyone as directors" model of operation, our ability to create a distribution model that is larger than each individual production can muster on their own is greatly minimized. There is no ready-made infrastructure mechanism for one production to package their revenue-creation model, and then provide a means for another production to grow that model by picking up where the previous production left off. Instead, subsequent productions find themselves creating from scratch their own revenue sources and "modeling" them on the successful concepts of their predecessors . . . but in the end everyone is starting from square-one, not building on a solid foundation that others have laid.

In order to break this degenerative cycle, there will have to be concerted investments made in the infrastructure of revenue generation for indy content itself, not the current status quo of revenue models that are a necessary capitalistic by-production of the artist's desire to monetize their individual projects, but failing to create the orthogonal task of packaging together a revenue-gathering mechanism that other productions can use as "ready-made" building block to steadily construct a revenue system where the system as a whole is greater than the sum of it's individual parts.

As noted eariler, if iTunes, or something of that nature, which is a dedicated distribution source that is directly investing into and improving it's own content distribution system, would create an "indy content distribution package", then the independent director/artist could concentrate on that task at-hand of producing great content without having to necessarily worry about the task of monetizing it, or at the very least of finding a possible refined revenue stream with its own dedicated marketing potential far greater than could be mustered by the individual efforts of the artist themselves. While there would still be onus on the director/artist to create through marketing the community to generate the revenue stream from, the low-level tools needed to generate that community would be taken care of . . . in other words the middle-ground *marketplace itself* would have been built by resource like iTunes where "real customers" looking to purchase content could directly connect with the generators of that content for sales.

The current method of indy revenue creation is almost as bad as door-to-door sales . . . in other words people are in their homes, and are not in the mindset of buying, so a door-to-door salesman is often seen as somewhat intrusive. Sure there are companies that still do that, and it has very low overhead, but compare that to the mall at Christmas where you have a marketplace full of people ready to buy, and are in the mindset of making a purchase. The onus to maximize the potential for purchases among the available variations is now dependent on the branding power of the product, not on the ability to change the mindset of the person in their home from anger and annoyance to an impressed purchasing mindset.

So in the end I feel that as long as we have an environment where each production must spend some overhead on the orthogonal task of trying to raising capital through their own individualized revenue methods (or copying the revenue creation methods of another "successful" production, but doing-so from square-one), we are not going to be working on the "construction" of a "marketplace". In the end, if you think about it, that is what a studio-funded production is about . . . they push a majority of their money for a given production into revenue generation, marketing, distribution stream creation, and capitalizing investments on available distribution streams and ancillary paraphernalia, leaving the actual production's directors and producers to the task of making the film. They are not worrying about how to generate the money to make the film, or trying to convincing investors that there will be a revenue stream for the content to gather profits from once the film is complete-the infrastructure the studio has built creates that vertical market for them to create in. Granted, those who hold the purse strings tend to dicate the "artistic direction" that a film may go in, but just saying, this is the problem with monetizing indy content, especially with the internet. There is no "build-it-and-they-will-come" model for revenue generation out there. Each production is simply left on their own to take some percentage of their production resources that could have gone else-where (typically these resources are time and money) and pile it into a cobbled-together revenue generation system that is often not even packaged and abstracted to the point where they themselves can reuse it on their next project, let alone another production.

Anyways, these are just some thoughts I have gathered on the state of revenue generation from indy content after Mark Gill's speech, and some of the musings from others like Mike Curtis at HDforIndies, etc. Maybe it's skewed a bit negative, so I'd be curious to see what the rest of you think . . .

The concentration of power in the current distribution system is what makes the indie scene so appealing.

By creating a framework for indie distribution and profit, you seem to just be following the old system of a singular entity to distribute the media and reap the majority of profit.

I feel that the technology of the internet can effectively remove the distribution middleman and have filmmakers market and sell their films directly to their audience.

Distribution now is not expensive, there is no shipping reels of film to theaters world wide. You can import your film to a computer, edit and finish it, and from the same computer begin seeding it to the masses. From a camera to a computer, the computer then becomes a cheap and accessible tool to become an all in one media production AND distribution gizmo.

Instead of creating a mass produced distribution network, artists can work with techies and customizes the distribution and profit center to the individual work of art.

What is needed is an open source framework of technology to become the distribution platform online. No central business entity to sell films, but open and accessible technology to share art with the masses.

 

[Ryan Koo]

We can pontificate ad naseum about the future of the internet and what it will allows independent producers to do, but the original question was this:

is there a market for content developed exclusively for the web? If so, has anyone been able to tap into it? Any advice? I have a web series I'd really like to make for about $5k a webisode.

We're talking about the state of the webisode MARKET right NOW. A lot of people have great ideas for internet series, but the term "market" must include something known as a Business Model. And right now it's VERY difficult to make money off quality filmmaking distributed on the web. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but name me a profitable web series and I'd be willing to bet it made money via either including a recognizable star, or going "viral" thanks to scantily clad women or sophomoric humor. Neither, to me, are great markers of a new frontier of "independent" content.

I've had meetings with over a dozen major studios specifically about internet content in the past six months. There is a market, yes, but tossing aside all speculation about The Future, in the current economy the webisode market is very depressed. It's been affected more than old media, because they have proven business models in place for traditional distribution methods even if the production is significantly more expensive. It doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is right now.

Now, if you can raise funding on your own, the difference with web distribution compared to theatrical and TV is it's viable to self-distribute. Web hosting is cheap, you can build your own site and farm it out to plenty of video sharing sites. However, you still need a business model apart from selling DVDs of the finished series and that's where the current ad rates (for static on-site or pre- and post-roll video ads), either on your own site or on sharing sites that offer a cut of ad revenue, make a profitable web series a difficult proposition -- especially at $5k an episode. I know because I've been pitching a $5k/episode series myself, and I'm also trying to figure out how to self-finance if necessary.

Anyone can say "the future is bright," and I'd agree with that. But we're talking about here and now.

 

[Brandon Kraemer]

I think the best bet for the here and now for marketing internet content is to merge it with a product tie in that holds relevance with the internet itself. One could argue if this is in fact an outlet for "independent" filmmaking, but if you want to get paid, you have to make sacrifices some where. Be it tacky web adds that flank your work or something tastefully ingrained.

A hypothetical example... lets say The Gap is interested in a product tie in "webisode" where by one of their associates (worker bees) has a day in the life lifestyle short film or series made about them (reality based) that maybe plays against the backdrop of their world working at The Gap to a minor extent, social interactions etc.., but more about 20 somethings living in say San Francisco, lifestyle stuff. Something aspirational that teens would log into around the country. Road Rules with a corporate basis. If it was compelling enough, people would return to see what happens next. The tie in could include printed pieces included with receipts at the store inviting viewers to go to the website, possibly even broadcast commercial advertising.

This idea might have some potential, more tech savvy brands would be better positioned than retailers for the internet content idea to tie in, such as software companies, isp companies and telecom etc because their audiences are likely already on the internet in a way that is more reachable.

One other avenue would be the ARG, or alternate reality game with significant video tie ins, much more so than used in the past. ARG's have been really successful in marketing to the viral crowd. I don't think it would be too tough to make a compelling video based ARG that requires significant interaction from the viewer and lets face it, with any marketable scenario, with out interactivity there is no profit to be made, even if that interactivity is simply going to a store and buying something. I think the effectiveness of click through advertising is over hyped.

These are just a few "marketable" ideas that I think are currently feasible in todays economy and audience base, but as with anything, you have to hit the bricks and have a great looking reel to sell in order to land these kinds of gigs. Companies right now are desperate to reach audiences and spend as little money as possible to do so.

If you all about original non-tie-in theatrical style content then don't expect to make any money off the internet per se, it would be more of a sales tool for you in the long run and it's possible that your better off sticking with finishing for the big screen and targeting film festivals with web content as an aside, for self marketing purposes.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

With Web Based content, your audience must first know about you in advance, have a desire to view your content, and be motivated to act on whatever monetization scheme you require of them. All of this in vast numbers. Speculative production is not very reliable as a business model. The school of "if you make it, they will watch it" is not a sound principle on which to proceed.

What the internet needs is it's own currency, it's own banking system and it's own exchange rate for goods and services. You buy credits, buy the content, goods, services etc., and you transfer those credits to your tangible accounts quarterly or monthly. Then every website charges admission in micro credits, (fractions of pennies or free for example) since every click is paid, you have a defacto virtual economy. Every Web User funds their surfing and every click is a transaction. Then every domain owner is paid for the visitors they get. The most compelling content/site that gets the most visitors, reaps the most rewards. So the popular sites are motivated to provide the highest quality content.

With such an underlying economic structure, the possibility would exist for the creation of virtual jobs. You earn your money on the net, you spend it on the net. Such a system would be global, trans-national and enable participation from anywhere in the world. It would need to be regulated or governed somehow and have a system of law for dispute resolution and managing of the virtual commerce. I think the only way to get the scale of financial rewards that people have historically enjoyed is to adopt such a system. It would be a virtual world and we would all be virtual consumers and producers, but the value is transferrable into tangible assets and vice-versa.

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

What is needed is an open source framework of technology to become the distribution platform online. No central business entity to sell films, but open and accessible technology to share art with the masses.

I agree that in an ideal world this would be an idyllic environment for independent film-makers to democratize their work . . . but the question then becomes who is making the investment in this "open-source framework of technology"? Most independent film-makers themselves are too busy making their own films and trying to start from square-one with monetary investment models for their own films to divest resources into a collective framework that will be self-sustaining and require a minimum amount of maintenance. Additionally, many of the tools or even the digital rights models necessary to sustain such a technologically open environment that also protects the artist from exploitation either does not exist, or are victims to the competition of ideas and agendas from companies that will make monetary gains for being the last one standing.

Even "open-source" software doesn't work that way . . . if it wasn't for the significant subsidizing efforts by well-heeled commercial companies like Sun, IBM, Intel, HP, Google, Nokia, AOL (Netscape), SGI (when they were in their glory days), AT&T, Apple, etc., the open-source software community we know today would not exist as the ground-swell juggernaut it has now become.

Any communal framework requires targeted investment, whether it's by one company, or a whole community of film-makers pouring resources into a collective effort to create something where the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. Sure, I don't think that concentrating power in the hands of a single company is necessarily a good idea, but the catalyst required to lay a foundation for this movement will have to come from somewhere . . . I don't think it's realistic to wish that the collective benevolence of film-makers world-wide will make something as extensive as this simply "happen".

I think eventually we'll get to a point where digital-distribution oriented self-service tools can easily connect us to our end-markets, provide digital rights management, and allow us to effectively monetize the investments required to make and market a film, but in that scenario I see these as being a by-product of the investments made in other areas by either the current media companies attempting to reap profits online, or by a cross-pollination of toolsets from other industries who have invested the capital necessary to create models for their own monetizing pursuits on the internet.

Thanks,

Jason

 

[PatrickW]

I agree that in an ideal world this would be an idyllic environment for independent film-makers to democratize their work . . . but the question then becomes who is making the investment in this "open-source framework of technology"? Most independent film-makers themselves are too busy making their own films and trying to start from square-one with monetary investment models for their own films to divest resources into a collective framework that will be self-sustaining and require a minimum amount of maintenance. Additionally, many of the tools or even the digital rights models necessary to sustain such a technologically open environment that also protects the artist from exploitation either does not exist, or are victims to the competition of ideas and agendas from companies that will make monetary gains for being the last one standing.

Even "open-source" software doesn't work that way . . . if it wasn't for the significant subsidizing efforts by well-heeled commercial companies like Sun, IBM, Intel, HP, Google, Nokia, AOL (Netscape), SGI (when they were in their glory days), AT&T, Apple, etc., the open-source software community we know today would not exist as the ground-swell juggernaut it has now become.

Any communal framework requires targeted investment, whether it's by one company, or a whole community of film-makers pouring resources into a collective effort to create something where the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. Sure, I don't think that concentrating power in the hands of a single company is necessarily a good idea, but the catalyst required to lay a foundation for this movement will have to come from somewhere . . . I don't think it's realistic to wish that the collective benevolence of film-makers world-wide will make something as extensive as this simply "happen".

I think eventually we'll get to a point where digital-distribution oriented self-service tools can easily connect us to our end-markets, provide digital rights management, and allow us to effectively monetize the investments required to make and market a film, but in that scenario I see these as being a by-product of the investments made in other areas by either the current media companies attempting to reap profits online, or by a cross-pollination of toolsets from other industries who have invested the capital necessary to create models for their own monetizing pursuits on the internet.

Thanks,

Jason

I realize that my dreams of a utopian digital distribution model sounds looney, but I am sure years ago the notion of a free operating system was lunatic as well...

What is really needed, technology wise, to work? A digital store (a website to showcase and sell the work, whilst reaping profit via adverts/merch/etc), a digital pipeline (to distribute the content), and a social network to share and market the products. You don't need to worry about DRM, its a hassel for everyone, and counter productive to distribution of art. Instead of trying, and failing, at people from "sharing" (aka stealing) your content make people WANT to support the content.

I fully understand who we have to thank for OSS...
Sun, IBM, Intel, HP, Google, Nokia, AT&T, Apple... These are just a few titans of industry that could benifit from people sharing films... Sun, IBM, Intel, HP, profit from the infrastructure roll out to support the content delivery, Nokia can deliver webisodes to its handsets, AT&T can be the carrier, and Apple can benifit from more filmmakers buying Macs to make films, and media consumers buying iPods to watch webisodes. And google, being an advertising company, can take a cut from the adverts...

I think with the underlying technology already available, mainly P2P distribution, all that needs to be done, is there to be one "killer app" or hit content that is exclusive to next gen media distribution and revenue models, and with a hacked together package, it will become apparent to everyone that prosperity through co-operation is best for the art.

What is stopping people today from making a film, getting a website to promote it, and delivering content via P2P, for example Bit Torrent a la pirate bay...

Speculative production is not very reliable as a business model.

As a business model no, but as a testing ground, its perfect.

Webisodes or what have you are perfect for testing the market. They are great for determining if fresh new content is good, making the risk of producing new content less risky. Instead of Hollywood pumping out sequels because they are safe. Before pumping out a multi-million dollar feature, pump out a few 5K$ webisodes and find the best new thing to exploit for massive profits.

What the internet needs is it's own currency, it's own banking system and it's own exchange rate for goods and services.

Hell no. Not only would this be another system to exploit (if your site gets money for being visited, what is to stop hackers from having zombie networks flooding your site in order to reap you massive profits).

 

[Jason Rodriguez]

I realize that my dreams of a utopian digital distribution model sounds looney, but I am sure years ago the notion of a free operating system was lunatic as well...

It is definitely not looney and I hope I don't give that impression in my posts . . . I'm just saying someone simply has to put a foot forward and make the investment.

If that's Apple with iTunes, another corporate entity, a consortium of independent distributors and content creators, or even the American tax-payer via the government, it doesn't really matter . . . but *someone* has to invest because while the product may be "free", the investment to make that frame-work (or a frame-work that really works by protecting the artist while allowing ready access to content by consumers) has significant costs.

Thanks,

Jason

 

[Alex Carr]

If you call them webisodes there is no market for that.

IF you call it Internet Television there is a tremendous unstoppable market exploding right now...There are no boundaries and billions of viewers worldwide. Once its on the internet anyone can see it.

 

[Justin Anderson]

If you call them webisodes there is no market for that.

IF you call it Internet Television there is a tremendous unstoppable market exploding right now...There are no boundaries and billions of viewers worldwide. Once its on the internet anyone can see it.

Very interesting. I believe it, but why is that? Is this from the viewing consumer's end or from the corporate advertising side?

 

[Nik Manning]

Interesting topic we have here. I am thinking about developing an iPhone app that addresses this issue. With the new subscription based app store model that is coming in the 3.0 iPhone update it may be profitable to make a webisode type of app. Buy the app and download new episodes inside the app. This is iPhone quality so you can always sell the HD rights later. Does this sound like something anyone here would be interested in?

 

[Josh Negrin]

hey Nik, I'm in and have some content ready!

 

[Nik Manning]

hey Nik, I'm in and have some content ready!

Shoot me an email with some examples if you can. On my side I have to find out what apple will allow. Not sure yet if they will let us download maybe 200mb video files as app updates. This would be for the 3.0 update so we are looking at summer probably august.

 

[Justin Anderson]

Interesting topic we have here. I am thinking about developing an iPhone app that addresses this issue. With the new subscription based app store model that is coming in the 3.0 iPhone update it may be profitable to make a webisode type of app. Buy the app and download new episodes inside the app. This is iPhone quality so you can always sell the HD rights later. Does this sound like something anyone here would be interested in?

Well, I'm interested in making money, but I'm not sure if people would be interested in paying for videos. Unless of course the content is really high quality. Not sure.

In general though, I'm surprised that people are paying for apps. It seems like the one place where people will still pay for content is over their cell phones (ringtones, songs, music videos, applications). Why is that? Will that change any times soon?

I'd definitely like to stay informed if you start developing this.

 

[Justin Anderson]

Shoot me an email with some examples if you can. On my side I have to find out what apple will allow. Not sure yet if they will let us download maybe 200mb video files as app updates. This would be for the 3.0 update so we are looking at summer probably august.

Hmm...Yeah, definitely keep us posted.

10min of iPhone quality video is roughly 70MB, right?

Consumers might be interested if there was some game/activity functionality paired in the app. Like you said though, it'll depend on the limits apple imposes on app updates.

 

[Josh Negrin]

hey justin... I don't want to be a bubble buster, but 10 min (11 min I think you wrote in another post) is way tooo effing long for a webisode. Unless of course you've got Tom Cruise!

Think about yourself as an audience member. You're sitting in front of a computer, you stumble across what looks like an interesting video. You start to watch... you don't recognize any of the actors (maybe they're good, maybe not.. who cares you don't know them) that's problem 1, and I (as much as I want to make internet television) would probably turn off at this point unless....

you've started the series with a high production value explosion or shootout or car chase (if it's cheesy... I'm out) but seeing as how you're on a $10k budget, chances are you're making a drama and not an action series. Nothing riveting... I'm out unless....

you have something that is hilarious and cheesy...

and of course the exception to the rule is this video.... which noone really knows what the hell it is but I guaran-damn-tee ya most are watching the entire 9 minutes of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU_reTt7Hj4&eurl

 

[Alex Carr]

nothing is too long for a webisode. Do more research, everything on TV is on the internet... streaming. If its interesting people will watch it.

 

[Zach Zoller]

There IS a market for webisodes. Yes that much is true. However, if you want to make money back then it is not the market you would want to jump into.
Nobody is ready to fork money for webisodes. Pepople don't want to pay to watch them and companies don't want to purchase them just to have people not want to pay to watch them.
If you have the skills and funds to produce a project it would be much more beneficial to make another short film and run the film festival track.
Thats where you will meet people and get noticed.
I don't want to discourage you if you do have your heart set on the webisodes as a project to develop your skills or just to enjoy. I'm sure it could turn out fantastic but in answer to your question. Right now there is no market for webisodes.
If you want to make your money back that is..

Z

 

[Justin Anderson]

I was talking to a friend yesterday and he believes that web content won't become mainstream until someone connects the internet and TV. I agree.

The web is a 'doing-based' experience. I get on the web to get stuff done, not really to just sit there and watch things. Though I will watch 1hr of Lost every week online, I'd still rather sit back and watch it in front of my larger TV.

If maybe some key companies like Netfilx and Hulu pushed for a way to get their content on TV's easily for the average consumer then we would see a more accessible way for web shows to become popular.


The other major issue of course is content quality. I go into whatever I watch on the web assuming that it will be bad, because it usually is. I'll watch Lost online, but I know that's coming from a trustworthy studio. I think it's going to take some great indie content being created in order to build people's confidence in web distribution, even if it means that this great content won't be widely watched but will instead pave the way for future good content.

And like Jason said, web content needs it's own studio-like system before it can become financially viable. Every indie filmmaker creating their own unique marketing platform, brand name, and revenue stream just isn't very economical...

 

[IndianWebSeries]

Mumbai Talkies

Mumbai Talkies

I agree with you guys that the web series concept has not yet picked up the pace it should have. But I am optimistic that with the ever increasing speed of internet connections, broad range of devices supporting it etc., one day web series would gain popularity in terms of viewership and sponsorship.

With this in mind we have recently launched MumbaiTalkies.com (http://www.mumbaitalkies.com) which is aimed at helping independent artists and film makers to showcase their films on-line. It mainly focuses on screening Short Films, Web Series or Webisodes, Web Shows. All films would be broadcast completely free of cost. As we progress, we are planning to create a revenue stream mechanism which would help everyone.

Any suggestions please let me know.

info at mumbaitalkies dot com

Thanks for your time.

Regards,

 

[Álex Montoya]

I was talking to a friend yesterday and he believes that web content won't become mainstream until someone connects the internet and TV. I agree.

I believe that's the main problem right now. A standard needs to be created and massively accepted to watch internet content on the TV.

Its the smallest of the necessary steps but still hasn't happened.