Do you decide the market / distribution channel before completion?

I think the title says everything:
Do you decide the market and distribution channels before or after the completion of your film?

(I am new here, feel free to advice me for any improper use)
 
You can do either, though as Morris implied, distribution should be worked out well in advance.

The market dictates what you can expect to earn from your film. Without knowing how much you can expect to earn, how are you going to know if your film can sustain your budget? It's not quite as simple as that, but I hope at least it'll point you in the right direction.
 
Do you decide the market and distribution channels before or after the completion of your film?

As with any product and any market you have to identify market demands and requirements before you even design your product, let alone before you actually start making it. By "demands and requirements" I mean; what kinds/types of products is the market looking for, what level of quality is expected and what technical requirements must be met. For example, it would be madness to design and build a car and then decide on the market. Maybe the market doesn't want that type of car and even if it does, maybe your car does not meet the build quality expectations of potential consumers and even if it meets both of these demands, maybe it doesn't meet the technical/legal requirements to even allow that car to be sold or driven on the road in the first place! One would have to know/research these factors before even starting because they would affect not only the design and manufacture of the car but dictate the budget required to meet all those "demands and requirements".

This is a fundamental basic principle of all commercial products and film is no different!! If you don't design and make your film for a specific market and distribution channel then your chances of meeting the demands and requirements of that market and distribution channel are pretty much zero. What will happen 99.9% of the time is that the only option open to you will be one of the self distribution channels which have no/low demands and requirements. The problem with this route is that along with the advantage of no/low demands and requirements is the disadvantage of no/low revenue and the extreme difficulty of even earning your investment back, let alone making a profit!

Let me give you an example, if your chosen distribution channel is say Youtube or Amazon you can make your film for practically nothing, it can be in standard or high definition, have just an amateur stereo sound mix and be of any genre but earnings are likely to be somewhere between virtually nothing and the low thousands of dollars. At the other end of the scale is theatrical distribution in one or more of the richer economic countries, where earnings are likely to be somewhere between the hundreds of thousands and tens of millions but to even stand a chance of this type of distribution is going to require 2k or 4k resolution, theatrical quality grading, a theatrical 5.1 sound mix, etc. Just on the sound mix side, it's going to cost roughly 100 times more than say a sound mix for local TV. Unless you plan for this in the designing, making and budgeting of your film then it doesn't matter how good your film is, it is not going to meet the technical demands/requirements of any major or even relatively minor theatrical distributor. Additionally of course there are the aesthetic and marketing demands/requirements, is the film in a genre which a distributor is looking to buy, does it have marketable cast/crew member/s, is it exciting/entertaining enough, etc.

Between these two extremes are a large range of distribution channels, in a large range of territories with a large range of demands and requirements and of course a similarly large range of related potential/likely returns. It is basic business sense to work out what market you are aiming for, what budget will be required to make a suitable/competitive product for that market and balancing that budget against realistic probable returns. If you don't apply this basic business sense to your filmmaking you stand pretty much zero chance of ever making a commercially successful film and by definition you will be an amateur filmmaker. It maybe that you want to be an amateur filmmaker, which is absolutely fine of course but as an amateur filmmaker why would you be concerned with or asking about marketing and distribution?

G
 
I totally agree with all of you.
It's common sense to design something according to a specific market's needs. And that's how I always think myself.
I know that in the very first steps you are forced to make decisions and those decisions need to have a target.

But I was also wondering if anyone went the other route and how did he go about it.
Are there any opportunities you may miss when deciding before hand? What do you think about that?
 
But I was also wondering if anyone went the other route and how did he go about it.

Almost every film that you haven't heard of went the other route. The typical how... "Max out the credit cards/borrow money. Make movie. Borrow more money to finish the film. Try to get the film into festivals. Try to sell it. Cry lots."

Are there any opportunities you may miss when deciding before hand?
Yep, but the landscape is changing recently, so the presales, while limits your opportunities are becoming less and less frequent.

What do you think about that?
I don't like it.
 
Anything is possible, but unlikely. As Sweetie mentioned, presales are becoming less frequent. You could make a contact with a major distributor from China after you sign away rights or there could be another source of distribution. Make sure you have a good lawyer and don't sign away rights forever.
 
As with any product and any market you have to identify market demands and requirements before you even design your product, let alone before you actually start making it. By "demands and requirements" I mean; what kinds/types of products is the market looking for, what level of quality is expected and what technical requirements must be met. For example, it would be madness to design and build a car and then decide on the market. Maybe the market doesn't want that type of car and even if it does, maybe your car does not meet the build quality expectations of potential consumers and even if it meets both of these demands, maybe it doesn't meet the technical/legal requirements to even allow that car to be sold or driven on the road in the first place! One would have to know/research these factors before even starting because they would affect not only the design and manufacture of the car but dictate the budget required to meet all those "demands and requirements".

This is a fundamental basic principle of all commercial products...

No, this is completely wrong and absolutely not a fundamental basic principle of all commercial products. Most corporates I have worked at (and even my own biz) do it completely differently. Henry Ford always said that if he'd asked his customers what they wanted, they would have said 'a faster horse.' Sometimes, you just have to think out of the box.

I supported a launch based on the iPad a couple of years back and had no idea what it was, what was going on etc... No-one knew and marketing did not get a look in because this solution came directly from a billionaire genius CEO. This product sold hundreds of millions and not a single piece of market analysis was run.

My interest in this extends to vehicles and I have a Honda and BMW. Both are from mainstream manufacturers and both had a production run which only lasted 2 years. The Honda's production run lasted one year and only 2 of this model and age exist in the UK of which I have one. It is my daily use vehicle and a reminder that in my profession, even the best hunches or marketing analytics are useless.
 
No, this is completely wrong and absolutely not a fundamental basic principle of all commercial products. Most corporates I have worked at (and even my own biz) do it completely differently.

No it's completely right and no corporates "do it completely differently"!!!! Unfortunately, your opinion/advice is the same as many amateur filmmakers and is one of the main reasons WHY they are and why they will remain amateur!

I supported a launch based on the iPad a couple of years back and had no idea what it was, what was going on etc... No-one knew and marketing did not get a look in because this solution came directly from a billionaire genius CEO. This product sold hundreds of millions and not a single piece of market analysis was run.

Horsesh*t! Apple had at least one expert, if not teams of experts, who specialised in market requirements. If they didn't, the iPad would likely not have complied with various legal requirements for personal electronic devices and would not have even been allowed on the market in the first place. The last generation Mac Pro for example, had to be withdrawn from the EU market for well over a year. That wasn't really a huge Apple design cock-up though, the EU laws changed after the Mac Pro was launched, so it had to be withdrawn from the market rather than it not being allowed on the market in the first place.

There is an additional consideration here though; Apple sells direct to consumers, commercial filmmakers don't, they effectively sell to distributors/broadcasters. So, whatever you think consumers want is irrelevant if you can't first satisfy: 1. Legal requirements AND 2. The technical and aesthetic requirements of distributors/broadcasters.

My interest in this extends to vehicles and I have a Honda and BMW. Both are from mainstream manufacturers and both had a production run which only lasted 2 years. The Honda's production run lasted one year and only 2 of this model and age exist in the UK of which I have one. It is my daily use vehicle and a reminder that in my profession, even the best hunches or marketing analytics are useless.

The very fact that you legally own and drive those models of Honda and BMW is testament to the fact that they DID meet all the legal/technical market requirements! Although, it would seem that either the market changed during production or they simply got the aesthetics wrong in the first place. In commercial filmmaking, even if all the legal, technical and aesthetic market requirements are met, there is still no guarantee of success. However, not meeting the market requirements does guarantee failure!

Henry Ford always said that if he'd asked his customers what they wanted, they would have said 'a faster horse.' Sometimes, you just have to think out of the box.

But, if Henry Ford designed and made his model "T" today it would be an absolute failure because it would not meet the current emission or safety standards and probably a whole host of other current market requirements and would not even be allowed on the market!

Thinking "out of the box" is risky in filmmaking but sometimes a risk worth taking. Crucially however, one needs to know "the box" in the first place AND know where it's acceptable to try and think/go outside of it. The problem with the vast majority of amateur filmmakers is that they don't bother to even find out what "the box" is and therefore, go outside of it in unacceptable areas and make films which are unmarketable!

G
 
Last edited:
No it's completely right and no corporates "do it completely differently"!!!! Unfortunately, your opinion/advice is the same as many amateur filmmakers and is one of the main reasons WHY they are and why they will remain amateur!



Horsesh*t! Apple had at least one expert, if not teams of experts, who specialised in market requirements. If they didn't, the iPad would likely not have complied with various legal requirements for personal electronic devices and would not have even been allowed on the market in the first place. The last generation Mac Pro for example, had to be withdrawn from the EU market for well over a year. That wasn't really a huge Apple design cock-up though, the EU laws changed after the Mac Pro was launched, so it had to be withdrawn from the market rather than it not being allowed on the market in the first place.

There is an additional consideration here though; Apple sells direct to consumers, commercial filmmakers don't, they effectively sell to distributors/broadcasters. So, whatever you think consumers want is irrelevant if you can't first satisfy: 1. Legal requirements AND 2. The technical and aesthetic requirements of distributors/broadcasters.



The very fact that you legally own and drive those models of Honda and BMW is testament to the fact that they DID meet all the legal/technical market requirements! Although, it would seem that either the market changed during production or they simply got the aesthetics wrong in the first place. In commercial filmmaking, even if all the legal, technical and aesthetic market requirements are met, there is still no guarantee of success. However, not meeting the market requirements does guarantee failure!



But, if Henry Ford designed and made his model "T" today it would be an absolute failure because it would not meet the current emission or safety standards and probably a whole host of other current market requirements and would not even be allowed on the market!

Thinking "out of the box" is risky in filmmaking but sometimes a risk worth taking. Crucially however, one needs to know "the box" in the first place AND know where it's acceptable to try and think/go outside of it. The problem with the vast majority of amateur filmmakers is that they don't bother to even find out what "the box" is and therefore, go outside of it in unacceptable areas and make films which are unmarketable!

G

With my 20+ years of experience, I can guarantee you are totally wrong. But hey, you have zero actual experience and have never worked as part of a prodev team but don't let your lack of knowledge hold you back. That must be where I am going wrong - experience - maybe if I just talked nonsense, I would get hired more...

As a note, I actually worked on one of the product launches you are talking nonsense about and know it wasn't as described.

However, I think that film commercialisation is very different. There are many nuances which I haven't yet got to grips with although am working on this. It's tricky but interesting and fingers crossed my little project next year will make a little money.
 
With my 20+ years of experience, I can guarantee you are totally wrong.

How can you in any seriousness be trying to convince me or anyone else that personal electronic device manufacturers or car manufacturers design and manufacture products completely without any consideration of the legal or technical requirements of the market?

However, I think that film commercialisation is very different. There are many nuances which I haven't yet got to grips with although am working on this.

I think there are some fundamental basics you haven't got to grips with, let alone the nuances!

G
 
How can you in any seriousness be trying to convince me or anyone else that personal electronic device manufacturers or car manufacturers design and manufacture products completely without any consideration of the legal or technical requirements of the market?



I think there are some fundamental basics you haven't got to grips with, let alone the nuances!

G

You have no idea what you are talking about. This is my profession. I am telling you, straight out, that I have the experience in this field. I am telling you right now, the majority of products and not R&D'd the way you have described.

If you want a straight out example of this, I understand you are British. There are crash test standards defined in legislation that dictate the minimum performance in a crash, which cars have to pass to be approved for use in the UK. However, there are cars which have not even taken this test which are sold in the UK.

Examples of manufacturers which have cars which have not been tested in this way are high end Audi, BMW and VW. Frankly, the idea that BMW is going to crash test its vehicles for 200 different countries where there are 100+ different crash testing regulations is laughable. Rather, they make their vehicles as sturdy as hell and we trust them.

Another example is Mercedes which manufactured a high end car in 1980 (W126) which was probably in violation of UK law at the time and multiple countries with their SRS systems. These systems are now standard and legislation changed in multiple countries to adapt to this. Their policy was to make something which was as safe as it could possibly be and it was up to the individual countries to adapt to this.
 
There are crash test standards defined in legislation that dictate the minimum performance in a crash, which cars have to pass to be approved for use in the UK. However, there are cars which have not even taken this test which are sold in the UK.

If you're talking about the ncap tests I don't believe they are a legal requirement but I could be wrong. Maybe some aspects of safety or other design decisions one can "get around" others can't be bypassed/avoided. Who in the company makes these decisions and why/how?

Merc, BMW and Audi have a reputation for well built cars of a certain quality, who are at the cutting edge of automotive technical design, technology and safety. The market demands/requires that they are, otherwise consumers wouldn't buy them. Is this level of build quality, tech design, etc., just pure chance or do these companies employ experts in these areas so they can satisfy these market demands. I say they do, you say they don't!

Rather, they make their vehicles as sturdy as hell and we trust them.

Exactly my point, why do they "make their vehicle sturdy as hell"? Who in BMW, decides what is "sturdy" and designs them that way or is it just all left to luck, a happy coincidence? Are you really saying these companies don't deliberately design their cars to be sturdy, don't set QC targets and don't even have any QC or QC experts?

Their policy was to make something which was as safe as it could possibly be and it was up to the individual countries to adapt to this.

Again, why was that their policy? Who in Merc decided what "as safe as it could be" was? Was SRS just a gimmick which didn't work or were there some experts in Merc who designed it, tested it and got it to work ... and if so, why?

G
 
Last edited:
If you're talking about the ncap tests I don't believe they are a legal requirement but I could be wrong. Maybe some aspects of safety or other design decisions one can "get around" others can't be bypassed/avoided. Who in the company makes these decisions and why/how?

Merc, BMW and Audi have a reputation for well built cars of a certain quality, who are at the cutting edge of automotive technical design, technology and safety. The market demands/requires that they are, otherwise consumers wouldn't buy them. Is this level of build quality, tech design, etc., just pure chance or do these companies employ experts in these areas so they can satisfy these market demands. I say they do, you say they don't!



Exactly my point, why do they "make their vehicle sturdy as hell"? Who in BMW, decides what is "sturdy" and designs them that way or is it just all left to luck, a happy coincidence? Are you really saying these companies don't deliberately design their cars to be sturdy, don't set QC targets and don't even have any QC or QC experts?



Again, why was that their policy? Who in Merc decided what "as safe as it could be" was? Was SRS just a gimmick which didn't work or were there some experts in Merc who designed it, tested it and got it to work ... and if so, why?

G

Again, not talking about NCAP as again, you don't know the difference from an NCAP and a PCAP.

The bottom line is I work in billion dollar corporates at management level with 20+ years experience of fighting my way up from nothing. R&D is worked on in a completely different way to the way you have described and you have specifically named projects I have personally worked on. Your description of them is at odds with my actual experience (which you don't have). R&D is fundamentally different from what you have described and your description is not something I recognize.

The majority of product design is a 'wing and a prayer' and the testing levels you have described are untrue for the majority of corporates.

What is interesting is I do not think my experience in the corporate world is transferable to the film world. The nuances are too different and if I try to think of things in terms of this, the marketing element falls apart. The marketing elements I am putting in place for my latest project are unlike anything I have seen or maybe I am just getting this part wrong.
 
So, if I worked for say BMW and designed a car with hammocks for seats and without: seat belts, a brake system, airbags or any other safety feature the market demands/expects, BMW would happily manufacture it and no one at BMW would ever question whether or not it would be acceptable to the market? Maybe you're right and QC doesn't exist in any other industry but I know for a fact that it does in the Film/TV industry!

G
 
So, if I worked for say BMW and designed a car with hammocks for seats and without: seat belts, a brake system, airbags or any other safety feature the market demands/expects, BMW would happily manufacture it and no one at BMW would ever question whether or not it would be acceptable to the market? Maybe you're right and QC doesn't exist in any other industry but I know for a fact that it does in the Film/TV industry!

G

Your total lack of experience / knowledge must be better than my 20+ years experience / exposure. Clearly, you must know more than me even though you do not have one iota of experience in this area. Makes me wonder if you actually know anything about sound.

I will leave you with one thought. 10 years ago, the CEO of a billion dollar firm (let's call him 'CEO X') ordered a product to be sold globally (the platform for which you have already mentioned in one of your posts). This product did not meet the legal requirements of, for example, one of Europe's largest countries.

CEO X sat in front of the CEO of the largest company in this country where the parameters were not met and was asked if the product met that country's legal parameters (it didn't). CEO X's reply was 'we're working on it.' The reality is no-one in the R&D department had even thought about these requirements, there was no team to deal with this area, it was never worked on but the product was being sold.

How do I know this? I was dealing with this country at the time.

I will repeat - The majority of companies do not do R&D in the way you describe. I think I will bow out now because you know nothing but continue to argue you are correct.
 
This product did not meet the legal requirements of, for example, one of Europe's largest countries.

Did it meet any requirements of any country and if so, are you saying that was nothing more than pure luck?

A seat belt is not needed for the normal operation/driving of a car, so why would any car have them, let alone all cars? Are seat belts added by some 3rd party after a car leaves the factory or are cars designed and manufactured to have seat belts, and if so why?

But all this about cars and electronic devices is besides the point ...

Makes me wonder if you actually know anything about sound.

That's your choice to decide but it makes no difference to me either way. It also makes no difference to me if you listen or ignore my advice in this thread, although it will make a huge difference to you, if as you say, you want to break into he commercial side of film/content making. Instead of arguing with an expert that QC and tech specs don't exist, most rational people would try and find out what tech specs/QC are and how to meet them, or at the very least learn what the consequence of not meeting them is likely to be. Some people just have to learn the hard way though, I see amateur filmmakers trying to create commercial content and having to stump up unplanned for wads of cash or shelve their "completed" films almost everyday. Good luck with that!

G
 
Did it meet any requirements of any country and if so, are you saying that was nothing more than pure luck?

A seat belt is not needed for the normal operation/driving of a car, so why would any car have them, let alone all cars? Are seat belts added by some 3rd party after a car leaves the factory or are cars designed and manufactured to have seat belts, and if so why?

But all this about cars and electronic devices is besides the point ...



That's your choice to decide but it makes no difference to me either way. It also makes no difference to me if you listen or ignore my advice in this thread, although it will make a huge difference to you, if as you say, you want to break into he commercial side of film/content making. Instead of arguing with an expert that QC and tech specs don't exist, most rational people would try and find out what tech specs/QC are and how to meet them, or at the very least learn what the consequence of not meeting them is likely to be. Some people just have to learn the hard way though, I see amateur filmmakers trying to create commercial content and having to stump up unplanned for wads of cash or shelve their "completed" films almost everyday. Good luck with that!

G

Actually, it was very interesting. The CEO wanted to do it so around 50 million USD was spent R&Ding / manufacturing. No upfront marketing, customer analysis, legal input or even what you seem to describe as 'quality control' (this term is like calling all mics 'shotguns') and homogeneity in the 35 countries it was released in was certainly not checked. The CEO wanted it, it was made and released out into the wild without any of the checks etc... you seem to naively believe should take place. Legal, risk mgt etc... were not involved.

It was just a kooky idea that was turned into reality. Upfront marketing etc... did not occur. We were all too d@mn busy running around trying to figure out getting it made. Sales / marketing was an afterthought and this type of situation is more often the norm in 20+ years experience.

No-one challenged him and legal, risk mgt etc... were not involved because they would have slowed the process down. It was a question of making it and trying to sell it. However, if you believed the hype, it was carefully researched, demographics were analysed etc... Don't believe the hype.

Not unlike the film making process you are talking about. Is it possible to make something amazing and try to sell it or is it the other way around? Well, my natural instinct with movie making is to make marketing part of the process and in my first commercial venture, this is what I will do. It is built-in, not 'before' or 'after,' rather it is an organic part of the product.
 
No-one challenged him and legal, risk mgt etc... were not involved because they would have slowed the process down. It was a question of making it and trying to sell it. However, if you believed the hype, it was carefully researched, demographics were analysed etc... Don't believe the hype.

I'm not giving you hype, I'm giving you my 20+ years in the industry!

Not unlike the film making process you are talking about. Is it possible to make something amazing and try to sell it or is it the other way around?

I say go for it, make something amazing and then try to sell it. As I said, there are some people who can only learn the hard way, good luck!

G
 
Back
Top