#tedhope

Ted Hope predicts our launch in 2014! See #11:

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

by Andrew Einspruch

Filmmaker Andrew Einspruch recently attended the Australian International Documentary Conference and wrote a series of articles for the event, which he’s graciously allowed us to reprint here. These articles originally appeared in Screen Hub, the daily online newspaper for Australian film and television professionals.

Cathy Henkel is a producer, director, academic and researcher. She brings all of those skills to bear on her documentary projects, and recently has been looking into what it takes to navigate an independent path as a filmmaker. In a session called Riding the Freedom Streams at this year`s Australian International Documentary Conference (AIDC), she invited documentary makers to brave the waters of a freer path.

Starting off with her nautical theme, Henkel said that you have to decide what kind of vessel you want your business to be.

One option is to wade into the main stream, the province of vessels she called the Good Ship Enterprise. The AIDC is primarily devoted to established and wannabe Enterprise ships. These businesses get their money from three main sources: broadcast pre-sales and distribution advances, government (grants or investments), and the Producer Offset. They are larger businesses with larger staff and larger overheads, and they have worked out how to get deals with the broadcasters and distributors, whose pre-sales and advances are needed to trigger government money.

How does one grow into an Enterprise ship? By persisting with mainstream activities. You get to know the broadcasters and distributors, and learn how to pitch to them effectively. You do what it takes to establish a track record, or you do what the agencies tell you to do if you don’t have one – team up with someone who does. You go to conferences. You pitch at pitch forums (which requires bullet-proof, well-developed concepts). And you tantalise them with your compelling documentary, where you have unique access to a particular world, out of which you can harvest a unique story.

But Enterprise ships become “servants to their funding masters,” as Henkel put it. They may get the business, but they get locked into the rigidity of timeslots, the need to keep their output up, and a loss of freedom in terms of style and format. The distributors they partner with want all rights deals, which means those Enterprise ships can’t plan their own release strategies, and have little hope for additional returns. The government funds they depend on come with strings attached, and it is easy for a project to bog down in contracting and administration. The result can be cash-flow problems, or projects that simply die because they are time critical, and the wheels of progress turn too slowly.

Still want to go that route? Yes? Then go for it. Just know that the river can only accommodate a handful of Enterprise ships. The competition is fierce, and you are likely to smack into what Henkel called a log jam. The simple fact is it is harder and harder for newcomers to crack into the mainstream business. The gatekeepers are harder to get to, and the money they pass out is shrinking. And it’s not like the established Enterprise ships are likely to toss you a rope and help tow you into safe, profitable water.

Then again, you might want to find a path that avoids the log jam. That is what Henkel has been doing for her own projects, and is the opportunity open to the many, more nimble players. She represented those smaller businesses as kayaks, and said they had four “freedom streams” that could provide finance. Those freedom streams include:

Private investment. This source of funds expects their money back, with interest. You have to pitch your project in terms of return on investment. But if they come on board, then the agreements can be done much faster, and the money can flow in quickly. They tend to leave you alone to make the project you want to make. Plus, the investors become your allies, and can open doors to audiences you would not otherwise reach.

Grants and philanthropy. Henkel called this “the sweetest finance of all”. Unlike private investors, there is no expectation that you will return their money in any form. It is a grant, which means the producers part of the project equity is higher. You can route the money through the Documentary Australia Foundation, which can benefit the giver with a tax deduction. Charitable givers are looking for returns in the form of social capital and social good. Like investors, they tend not to exert creative influence. You do, however, need to tend the relationship, so they know their money is spent well and they are getting a favourable result. They, too, can be advocates andhelp you reach a broader audience.

Corporate sponsorship/investment. Companies can come on board as an investor, providing cash or in-kind services. In that case, they expect their money back down the track. Alternatively, they can sponsor your film with cash or in-kind, which means they don’t expect a direct financial return. The third option is where a service provider agrees to re-invest part of their fee in the project. Facilities deals often take this form. In all cases, though, they want some kind of product recognition or acknowledgement. Plus, you have to make sure you don’t have so much of this that it jeopardises your producer offset.

Crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is people making glorified gifts, which means they do not expect a financial return. Like charitable grants, the money becomes part of the producer’s equity, and it is not encumbered with creative strings. It flows in at a predictable time. Just know that crowdfunding is hard work to do well, and you have to make sure that the goodies you offer don’t make the exercise unprofitable.

Being a freedom stream rider is very hands-on for the producer. You have to be temperamentally suited to sticking with your project for years, and doing all the things that otherwise a distributor or sales agent might do. Henkel, for example, has a documentary coming out in in the second half of 2013 called Rise of the Eco-Warriors . She expects that project to significantly occupy her for the bulk of 2014 as well.

That’s because distribution is a big deal, and getting your doco out into the world is what it is all about.

Henkel cited the spiritual godfather of SPAA Fringe, Peter Broderick, who has been preaching a gospel of alternative distribution for years. As a producer, you can access audiences anywhere in the world, using online platforms. You can gather a personal audience who you can take with you from project to project. If you distribute yourself, then the money comes to you, and you can implement a distribution strategy that suits you and your project. Plus, no one will care about your documentary more than you. You can translate that passion into a greater chance of success.

The term Henkel and Broderick use is “hybrid distribution”, which she said involves “Self-management of distribution and direct sales to audiences, combined with selective release of rights to third party distributors such as DVD distributors, TV channels, VOD companies, educational distributors, and online outlets.” She emphasised that it was not about doing it all yourself. Rather, you carefully choose partners who help you – but the producer keeps control. This contrasts directly with a traditional arrangement with distributors, where the producer hands over the product, and more or less waves goodbye.

Just know that doling out small bundles of rights to a variety of partners means the producer has to do more deal-making, sign more contracts, and put up with the additional hassles involved.

A key benefit of this hybrid approach is your direct connection to the audience. In the old model, the producer had no idea who was watching the doco, because that information stayed with the distributor or exhibitor. But direct distribution lets you know who bought your film. As Broderick says, you convert your fans from customers to patrons. They can become active advocates for your work. Many filmmakers, Henkel included, say that one of the best aspects of crowdfunding is that it lets you raise the profile of the project, test whether an audience is going to respond to it, and helps you tap a pool of people who want you and your film to succeed.

In the end, Henkel said the choice is yours. One choice is, “Partnering with the big companies, going the Enterprise way, increasing overheads and trading off freedom for the existing TV pre-sales, old world distribution offers and government funding,” she said. “Or you can combine the four freedom streams with the three traditional stream and experimenting with Hybrid distribution. And have fun along the way.

“The freedom streams are not an easy option. But they offer more control over your own destiny, better returns if you succeed, and more creative freedom.” Henkel was clear which direction she prefers. She said she did not yet know if this path was sustainable. But even if it wasn`t, she knew that what she learned would help her do it differently in the future.

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

Yesterday, we launched our A2E (Artist To Entrepreneur) program at the San Francisco Film Society with OnRamp (The Direct Distribution Lab).  This is a pilot lab of a pilot program designed to give filmmakers the necessary entrepreneurial skills to achieve a sustainable creative life amidst this changing paradigm.  We will be working out some bugs but hope to launch the second iteration as soon as possible.

As part of the lab, we have a first day of big ideas and case studies that hopefully will give the participants the foundation for a design for living and thriving on their art.  As part of that I have prepared three brief lectures focused on what every filmmaker needs to recognize about the business, the culture, and their practice if they want to have a sustainable creative life.  Split between the three categories, I came up with fifty things you should know.  I will provide them to you over the next week or two, but I wish you all could have been there.   It’s always different when you are in the room.

Today, I will unleash what I think it is necessary to recognize about our industry if you are a filmmaker looking to survive from the work you generate. 

WARNING: taking any of these points out of context, could create unnecessary fear or depression. If you want to tackle reality, you need to know what ground you walk on.  Some truths are hard to accept but once you do, you can move forward and to a different place.  Adding Film Biz realities to Culture truths, and building Best Filmmaker Practices on those understandings could provide a Design For Sustainable Collective Creation.  Or at least that’s this Hope’s hope.

Filmmaking is not currently a sustainable occupation for any but the very rare.  It is not enough to be very good at what you do if you want to survive by doing what you love.

Presently speaking, artists & their supporters are rarely the primary financial beneficiaries of their work – if at all. Filmmakers are not sufficiently rewarded for their quality creative output under current practices.

The film industry’s economic models are not based on today’s reality.  They are predicated on and remain structured upon antiquated principals of scarcity of content, centralized control of that content, and the ability to focus the majority of consumers towards that content. 

Film audience’s current consumption habits do not come close to matching the film industry’s production output.  America remains the top film consumption market in the world, and is thought to be able to handle only around 1% of the world annual supply – consuming somewhere between 500-600 titles of the annual output of approximate 50,000 feature films.  We make far more films than we currently know how to use or consume.  We drown our audiences in choices.

The film industry has not found a way to match audiences with the content they will most likely to respond to.  It doesn’t even look like this is a priority for the business.  Everything is spaghetti against the wall, marketed in the same way & only to the most general demographics of race, gender, & income.

In order to reach the people who might respond to a film, the film industry remains dependent on telling everyone (including those who could care less) about each new film.  It is a poorly allocated dedication of resources.  We spend more money telling those who will never be interested, than focusing on those who have already demonstrated support.  There is no audience aggregation platform exclusively for those who love movies, no place where all people who love movies engage deeply about films – if there was, marketing costs could shrink.

Digital distribution is an emerging market and will continue to evolve over the next decade.  The value for titles for the long term has not been specified for digital distribution; currently only short term value is derived – and as a result films are licensed without full understanding of future worth.  We are doing a business of ignorance.

Predictive value of films is primarily currently determined by an incredibly imprecise method:“star value”, a concept that grows less predictive by the day.  Ask anyone and they will tell you that people do not go to movies anymore to see specific stars but interesting subjects.  Granted, that is not a scientific method, but we know it to be true.

The “fair market value” of a feature film’s distribution rights in the US that multiple buyers want has dropped astronomically: from 50% of negative costs 25 years ago, to 30% 15 years ago, to 25% 10 years ago, to 10% today.

10. International territorial licensing of American independent feature films has dropped by approximately 60% over the last decade.  Major territories no longer buy product.  Most have given up on “American Indies”.

11. Everything that has ever been made, has also been copied. The logic of a business based on exclusive ownership or limited access to something can not sustain.  In the digital era the duplication of data is inevitable.  The unauthorized copy will never go away.  People can choose to try to avoid unauthorized versions but they will be made or shared.  This does not have to always be a bad thing either.

12. Competing options for film viewing have diminished the comparative value of theatrical exhibition. A consumer can not justify the cost of a movie ticket when that ticket costs more than the cost of a month of unlimited streaming.  Home theaters’ quality surpasses many theaters, and the seats are always better.  Soon 4K Televisions will be the norm while movie theaters are stuck in 2K.

13. The film business lacks a long range economic model for exhibition.  What is the business of movie going? Exhibition gathers people together to sell them a 15 cent bag of popcorn for six dollars.   We can profit from a large group’s interest in more and more meaningful ways, but the infrastructure is not yet designed to expolit this.

14. The film industry foolishly rewards quantity over quality.  Producers are incentivized to forever take on more and the films’ quality suffers as a result.  The best work is not rewarded.  Once upon a time, filmmakers got overhead deals and that made some difference, but those days are long gone.

15. Movies have a unique capacity to create empathy for people and actions we don’t know or have not experienced.  Science has shown that the imagined releases a similar chemical response to the actual experience.  If this empathic experience is virtually unique to film, can it be utilized more?  I think so, tremendously so in fact.

16. Movies create a shared emotional response amongst all those that view it simultaneously.  What other product can claim that?  As a unique attribute, how can you emphasize that more?  Shouldn’t that be the takeaway that your audience remembers and shares?

17. There has never been a better time for most creative individuals to be both a truly independent filmmaker and/or a collaborative creative person.  The barriers to entry are lower, the cost & labor time of creation & distribution are lower than ever, and there are more opportunities and methods that ever.  We just need to abandon the old ways and unearth the new ways.

What’s your response to these?  I personally think it would be great if the answer could always be: “I am going to do something about that.  And I am going to get a little help from my friends.”  Every single one of these can change; it may require a complete move from doing things the way we do them now, but they can get better.  If you want to make movies, and make your profession filmmaking, I think you will have a tremendous advantage if you recognize the world we are living in and the power you have to improve it.  I think these points are the obvious truths that we can use to drive us forward.  And there are more.

Next week I will share “19 Things About Our Current Culture That Should Influence Your Creative & Entrepreneurial Practice”.  Until then, keep producing.  We can build it better together.

"in 2003, 455 films were released, 275 of those were independent, 180 were studio films. last year 677 films were released, so you’re not imagining things—there are a lot of movies that open every weekend. 549 of those were independent, 128 were studio films. so, a 100% increase in independent films, and a 28% drop in studio films, and yet, ten years ago: studio market share 69%, last year 76%. you’ve got fewer studio movies now taking up a bigger piece of the pie and you’ve got twice as many independent films scrambling for a smaller piece of the pie. that’s hard. that’s really hard." - steven soderbergh on the state of cinema.

case study: what's a bigger risk for a studio? a $150 million blockbuster or a $5 million 'indie' film.

well, according to mr. soderbergh (in the article linked above) the answer is, sadly, the $5 million 'indie film.'

it breaks down like this and it comes back to something i've been circling around, discussing, and sharing articles about for weeks now: distribution. see, the way a studio looks at it, that little film is still going to cost around $20-$30 million to distribute and market domestically. and since exhibitors (read, movie theaters) take about half of those profits, in order to just cover the film needs to gross $70 million.

as soderbergh asks, is it more common to hear of a $5 million film pulling in $70… or a $100 million film pulling in $300 million.? this also gets into the international market where films now are making the majority of their money.

so what films cost $100 million+ to make and sell REALLY well overseas? the franchises. why do you think we churn out a million iron mans and avengers and star wars and fast and the furious and james bond and lord of the rings and all your other major tentpole releases each year?

the studios aren't dumb. and they know how to placate the worldwide audience. hell, i love those big movies. but it presents a problem when disney would rather invest hundreds of million dollars in a bomb like john carter or universal in a stinker like battleship than to help a dynamic filmmaker like shane carruth get his small film into theaters.

but that's where we are. we are in the age of tentpole releases. disney will churn out two marvel films and a star wars film starting in 2015. it will be pragmatic and calculated. some of those movies will probably be an incredible amount of fun (i could not be more excited to see what JJ does with star wars, for example). but it means they are less willing to take real creative risks on younger, potentially game-changing directors.

i'm of the belief that the best content will find a way to find its audience. but even a couple decades removed from the 90s… would it be as easy for tarantino and PTA and wes anderson to begin their careers today. perhaps. i mean, look, the fact that a film like benh zeitlin's beasts of the southern wild can garner an oscar nod for best picture speaks volumes about the capacity for great content to still find an audience. and it is encouraging when a film like ryan coogler's fruitvale station can win the grand jury prize at sundance and find a summer release, or when an indie film like daniel patrick carbone's hide your smiling faces (an audaciously strong debut if there ever was one in recent memory) can gain such accolades coming out of tribeca.

but perhaps we shouldn't look at these film as outliers. perhaps they speak to a change that is occurring in the film industry for those brave enough to embrace it. the san francisco film society (which hosted soderbergh's state of cinema speech and is doing some special work with independent film through current director, ted hope) was an ardent supporter of beasts of the southern wild and awarded the filmmakers a grant to complete the film. same goes for fruitvale station. and hide your smiling faces only entered into production after a successful Kickstarter campaign and was supported by IFP through its Narrative Labs program (dee rees' criminally under seen pariah also went through IFP).

are we starting to see a trend here? there are new communities forming around supporting the independent filmmaker. and if the studios and gatekeepers are going to pick up their ball and go home to play with luke skywalker and iron man, then we will find new tribes to hang out and work with. but this will ONLY work if we truly are invested. it will only work if there are more ted hopes and ifps of the world dedicated to helping filmmakers find their audience. and it will only work if we take the lead of filmmakers like carruth and zeitlin and coogler and carbone and rees and act brave enough to explore and navigate these new channels.

and to the gatekeepers? i leave you with a quote from my other favorite recent keynote address from comedian, patton oswalt:

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

By Rob Millis

Of more than 300,000 people going to SXSW this week, there are four whom every filmmaker should pay especially close attention to. They are easy to find if you’re going to be in Austin this week, because they will all be part of the Meet the Insiders sessions. For those of you staying at home, bookmark this list and do a little googling to keep tabs on what these four gurus are up to.

Ingrid Kopp, Tribeca Film Institute Ingrid Kopp has been deeply involved in breaking new ground for independent filmmakers for over a decade. From her time at Channel 4 in the UK to running the US arm of Shooting People to her work with Tribeca Film Institute, she has a uniquely valuable understanding of where film has been and where it is going. Like all great innovators, Ingrid is a champion of the underdog, a lover of great stories, and always has an eye fixed on the horizon. No matter what your role in the great ecosystem of film, you’ll benefit from hearing her speak publicly and will be lucky to meet her if you get a chance.

Martijn te Pas, International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam IDFA is the largest documentary festival in the world, and one of the most valuable industry events I’ve attended. As Program Coordinator, Martijn makes it possible for over 300 documentaries to reach the market each year in screenings at IDFA. More deeply, he has been involved in everything from IDFA’s funding programs, acquisition and networking market (Docs for Sale), in addition to advising the Dutch Cultural Media Fund. If you have ever wanted to know anything about the film festival process or public funding projects, you will want to keep an eye out for Martijn and pay close attention when he speaks.

Scott Macauley, Filmmaker Magazine Scott Macauley is a very familiar name to many independent filmmakers, if only because his name is attached to much of what we read and hear about. As Editor of Filmmaker Magazine, Scott has not only been steeped in the complexities of a rapidly changing industry, but as a writer he has also been one of the sage guides for filmmakers trying to navigate it all. He has the experience of an independent producer coupled with the unique contextual vantage point of an editor who must constantly be aware of the big picture (and sometimes shape it).

Meghan Wurtz, Film Movement Film Movement is one of the most impressive efforts in independent distribution in the last 20 years. I have discovered the brilliant work of more great filmmakers through this series of film compilations than through any film festival, cable channel, Netflix recommendations or any other source. Seriously. Expert curation, great outreach to the market and reliable delivery have been a big part of their success. Though the times are changing (my Film Movement subscription lapsed simply because DVDs are such a drag to use), Meghan carries extensive experience in digital and television distribution, as well as a valuable understanding of the international marketplace. Smart independents are sure to learn something anytime she shares her take on distribution.

While there may be 25,000 others you should meet/follow/stalk in Austin this week (the Insiders series alone is full of exceptional people), in my humble opinion these are the absolute, must-hear speakers for all filmmakers.

Bookmark this page to share your thoughts after seeing them speak!

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

Joe Brewster and Michèle Stephenson’s film American Promise screened at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. Below is part 3 of 3 of an interview with them discussing what it was like to attend Sundance.  Prior sections included what it was like to get the confirmation call and  preparing the film for Sundance.

Joe: This has certainly been a roller-coaster ride for us.  We were accepted into our dream festival and left Park CIty, Utah with an amazing outcome.  We were honored with a special Jury Prize for achievement in documentary filmmaking and we received amazing reviews from the critics.  Yet, there is a cloud of worry looming over my head and I cannot pinpoint why.  It is not the 12 inches of snow outside my Brooklyn doorstep nor the cough I acquired from our nightly Sundance celebrating.  My concern is that our Sundance storybook beginning was just that – a beginning.  What happens next?

  Michèle: I guess the concern (or fear) is that this will not continue.  And since returning to Brooklyn we clearly have not been recipients of the same attention and adulation.  We are back to life as parents , soccer practice and PTA meetings.  That’s not a bad thing, because the Sundance pace was unsustainable.  I have Joe’s same concerns.  I want my work, 13 years worth of it, to be seen and respected by our peers.  I want to be assured that we will make a difference in how the subject of academic achievement of Black boys is handled. But we can’t guarantee anything.  So, we work, we wait and we worry.

  Idris:  That sentiment is pretty typical in this family.  My parents have invested so much time and effort into the making of this film but they can’t even relish this moment.  Well, me, I’m gonna relax and enjoy the moment before I need to get into my mid-term groove.  My parents’ dedication to this project has been inspiring to me and I’m proud of them but if someone dropped a shitload of money in their pockets right now, they would still be nervous about tomorrow.

  Joe: I’m not sure things are that simple.  We have high expectations and we need to manage them.  The reality is that acceptance to  a festival is just the first step toward the realization of our goals for the film, behavior change.  We are coming to terms that every festival, every newspaper review, every community screening will be a struggle.  I guess this realization is the painful truth of film campaigns, results always require lots of hard work and uncertainty.     

  Michèle:   But we had plans and we were prepared for post-Sundance journey. Over the next two years we will take American Promise on the road, hosting community screenings nationwide and partnering with organizations whose mission includes supporting Black males’ academic, social and emotional growth.  We are also completing a book,  American Promise, scheduled for an October 2013 release (Random House) for parents and other stakeholders aimed at helping to close the academic achievement gap.  We are also supporting an effort to raise $100,000 for  Big Brothers Big Sister’s Mentoring Brothers In Action Initiative and enlist 100 new mentors (of any background) for Black males, who have the hardest time finding mentors.  So, if you are reading this blog and you want to reduce Joe’s anxiety level, send $10.00 to Big Brother’s and Big Sisters by text, text BIG1 to 80100.

  Joe: Or, you could just send me a note and say keep up the struggle my brother.

via Hope For Film » Truly Free Film

By Rob Millis

Two changes in tech and finance are about to have a huge impact on independent film: crowdfunding and the JOBS Act.

We all know about Kickstarter and IndieGoGo, the crowdfunding platforms that have been helping independent creators launch projects. These platforms and others have already been hugely successful with DIY projects and direct-to-fan networking, yet even after years of growing popularity they haven’t come anywhere close to their full potential.

Last year the Slated networking and fundraising platform joined the market as well. Slated offers a system geared toward film professionals seeking (or supplying) investment dollars. Unlike previous crowdfunding platforms, Slated’s approach is less about DIY and more about professional partnerships. In short, they are taking crowdfunding to the next level.

Recent legislation is paving the way for platforms like these to offer services for startups and small businesses (including your production company) to raise funds by selling equity. Since 1933 there have been tight restrictions on fundraising from American investors, intended to prevent nefarious characters from swindling naive investors, and to prevent fools from taking out a second mortgage to finance risky ventures. Startup companies haven’t been able to promote investment offerings to the public at all, which has meant that in most cases only private equity firms and wealthy individuals with personal connections have been able to even learn about opportunities to invest in new ventures.

But this year the JOBS Act will enable any small company to raise up to $1 million in private funding from almost anyone. Investors will soon be able to buy a small stake in your film production without having to be multi-millionaires or know you personally. With such a game-changing opportunity on the horizon, it’s a good idea to build a foundation right now by getting to know the popular platforms.

Kickstarter and IndieGoGo are worth trying out if you haven’t already. To familiarize yourself with both, browse through some of the film projects seeking funding and spend a few dollars on a film project to see how the process works. For instance, just $10 will get you a nice mention in the credits for a short crime film on IndieGoGo, and just $5 will get you a poster and soundtrack for a zombie thriller on Kickstarter.

Slated operates as a closed community (you need two professional members to vouch for you before joining), but most readers of this blog will likely have no problem with that. Once you’ve joined, you can set up your profile and begin tracking films, people and companies that interest you. When the time is right, a long history and deep network in this community will help you present film projects for funding, distribution assistance and other services. Many independents may find the greatest value actually comes from tracking the investment companies on Slated, which will help you better understand the marketplace and what investors are seeking when financing film productions.

There is no telling exactly how public policy will shape the market, but anyone with a long term career in the industry will benefit from an early understanding of the tools available.

Rob Millis is the founder of Dynamo Media and one of the creators behind the Dynamo Player, the first online pay-per-view platform freely available to independent filmmakers. Rob was an early pioneer of online video production and distribution, and has been a founder, investor or advisor with several online media and industrial technology companies. You can find Rob on Twitter at @robmillis or learn more about Dynamo at http://bit.ly/15E9l3e.