How do you pick your distributor?

I have no personal experience with distribution companies since I have just now finished my first feature, but I have friends who have had bad experiences so I'll say this (even though you touched on it a bit):

Transparency. I was staying in a hospital once and the OnDemand system on the hospital TV had my friend's film on it. I texted him a photo and he was completely surprised by it, and hadn't seen any revenue from that provider.

I don't know the details of his relationship with his distributor, but I think a filmmaker should have a visual online platform that tracks sales, views, reach, dollars, and other stats. Filmmakers should always be able to see how their film is performing for themselves rather than just relying on the distributor's word.

moonshieldmedia said:

I have no personal experience with distribution companies since I have just now finished my first feature, but I have friends who have had bad experiences so I'll say this (even though you touched on it a bit):

Transparency. I was staying in a hospital once and the OnDemand system on the hospital TV had my friend's film on it. I texted him a photo and he was completely surprised by it, and hadn't seen any revenue from that provider.

I don't know the details of his relationship with his distributor, but I think a filmmaker should have a visual online platform that tracks sales, views, reach, dollars, and other stats. Filmmakers should always be able to see how their film is performing for themselves rather than just relying on the distributor's word.

Click to expand...

That's a good idea. This was something our tech guy brought up, building a portal for film makers to track sales and distribution channels. I think that's important, but it doesn't replace a one on one conversation or a phone call.

The one offering the most up front cash.

Upfront cash

I'd be interested to work with a distributor who offered a pretty average and fair deal (and I wouldn't push for more money) if they might also be willing to work with me in developing my next film, whether it be investing, finding investors, or just offering services or connections to help get the next one made.

I think you have decent goals. The trick is really to differentiate.

Figure out what you can do better than your competition and concentrate on that.

With that in mind, you also need to figure out who your ideal client is and what their needs are, and their priority of those needs.

For instance, your ideas of client communication, while important to me, I consider timely reporting more important. In my mind, communication is only necessary if something is going wrong.

For me, my main concern is maximizing and timely financial returns for myself and my investors. Traditionally, most particularly for distribution that involves P&A spending, that's been the size of the advance.

I also like more controlled spending that is beneficial on both sides or aligned goals.

What I'd really like to see is a symbiotic relationship. Distribution usually takes its cut of gross distributor takings and then subtracts expenses. This maximizes returns to the distributor at the expense of the filmmaker, often incentivising the distributor to maximize their own returns, through extra P&A spending which at best often only breaks even on the books, nets the distributor a chunk of gross takings and the filmmaker gets nothing. In a symbiotic relationship I'd like to see it where the distributors fee is taken from profits (after expenses) and your office expenses are taken from your negotiated distributor fees instead of tacked on as an expense to the filmmaker. Meaning, you don't make money unless I also make money. At that time, our goals are aligned and I can trust the distributor to make the correct decisions for the filmmakers interests (of course based on the competency of the distributor). Until then, your goals aren't aligned.

This is why I like your idea of Gross points, and I doubt a lot of filmmakers see why this is a huge part of your competitive advantage. Use it and I suggest you learn to communicate it a lot better.

4tenpro said:

So, I'll be honest upfront. I'm in the process of starting a new distribution company which will officially launch at the end of the month. I've been bouncing around a few sites asking questions of you fine folks, on how we can be a distributor film makers want to work with (instead of the evil image I have in my own head, as the result of watching a film I produced be poorly handled).

Aside from the obvious distribution methods, here are a few things that we think will make this special; but I wanted to ask if there was anything we were missing or anything you'd like to see? Here's what we've got.

• Offer gross percentages. We think it's best that if the film is making money, everyone is making money. Sure, there
  are release expenses, but there were production expenses too. Seems like a lot of B.S. to track expenses too.
  
• Communicate. We've found that this is a big problem. It should be a harmonious partnership, a marriage of art and commerce and that doesn't mean ignoring emails and phone calls. As lofty as it may sound, we would like to form actual partnerships with our film makers.
  
• Marketing. Real, honest to God creative thought. It seems like an obvious thing, but most of these low budget distributors do zero marketing and if they do, they're terrible at it.
  
• PR and Social. Managing the brand and image of the film from top to bottom. Tying in creative concepts and promotions on Facebook/Twitter. Contacting review sites and publications and getting some press behind the film.

I know that major distribution companies do a lot of this, and do it well. But I haven't found any low to medium budget specialists that can pull this stuff off.

So let me know what you think. Help build a distributor you don't hate.

Click to expand...

For me what I have seen in the last few years is more and more people turn off their tvs and rely on their computers to bring them media entertainment. Of course I live in a country where we have about 9 channels as part of our government run broadcast system so I understand that for other countries there is more choice. However the fact remains that more and more people are looking online with live streaming of movies, and of course torrents. I always wondered if there were a way that movie pirates etc would embrace free media if it were freely given, whereby they could view movies for free and download for free, with the revenue coming from adds placed at the start and/or end of a movie, a lot like going to the cinema. The movie maker would earn revenue off each view of their movies, from the adds, the distributor would take a reasonable slice also, and the movies would go out in high quality with none of the issues that plague torrents such as cam versions or bad audio. It would give the public access to the film either straight away, or once it has gone through cinemas, and is then placed right in front of the tens of thousands of potential site visitors each day which is a big selling point to potential advertisers.

I have no idea if this would actually work, or what problems it might face but it would certainly allow you as a company to give the film maker a definitive way to see where his movie went and what he did right/wrong in the review section that would no doubt be attached to the download.

I personally would happily allow such a company to distribute my film, as long as they had the pull to get hundreds of thousands of potential viewers to embrace their site.

I personally would happily allow such a company to distribute my film, as long as they had the pull to get hundreds of thousands of potential viewers to embrace their site.

Click to expand...

Not sure if you're aware, but the numbers you're talking would limit the revenue of your movie to about $20k, less distribution fees, advertising etc. This also assumes the highest range of your hundreds of thousand views (999k).

This is partly why this method isn't used as a distribution method. Assuming every eyeball on the planet watched your movie once, it would give you a revenue cap of about 12 million dollars. It's tough to achieve those numbers. To put it in perspective, Avatar (along with its 9 figure advertising budget) only managed to pull in 5% of those eyeballs.

With this data in mind, would you continue to support this distribution method for your movie?

Sweetie said:

Not sure if you're aware, but the numbers you're talking would limit the revenue of your movie to about $20k, less distribution fees, advertising etc. This also assumes the highest range of your hundreds of thousand views (999k).

This is partly why this method isn't used as a distribution method. Assuming every eyeball on the planet watched your movie once, it would give you a revenue cap of about 12 million dollars. It's tough to achieve those numbers. To put it in perspective, Avatar (along with its 9 figure advertising budget) only managed to pull in 5% of those eyeballs.

With this data in mind, would you continue to support this distribution method for your movie?

Click to expand...

I was not aware of the figures involved. But assuming all went well and we got the same amount of views as Avatar which is perhaps not likely I know, I can't help but wonder if that figure takes into consideration the pirated versions that got downloaded and viewed. I suspect not. So really the possible numbers would I suspect be higher then the 5% that was able to be tracked, which would in theory then, give us a higher return.

That's one way to look at it, but if you spend hundreds of millions producing a film and a hundred million promoting it, even if you doubled the eyeballs (and, on top of that, removed all the revenue from the other distribution windows while you're at it) your revenue cap it still about 1.2million dollars. If memory serves me right, it about the revenue from the top youtube video of all time.

Piracy rates really aren't that high. I don't know the numbers, but last time I read anything about the numbers is was in the single digit range. 1 to 2% sounds about right, but may be as high as 5%. If you do put it out for free, you never know, it might double the audience. So instead of X people paying $10 per head, you'll get X*2 views and receive about $0.001 per eyeball.

I'm saying it's a great thought, but the numbers don't make enough sense for the film industry to adjust their window based distribution method entirely to a free/advertised model.

I know as a filmmaker, I'd rather earn a real living, rather than the 50c/hr which would be required to make this distribution method work.

Sweetie said:

That's one way to look at it, but if you spend hundreds of millions producing a film and a hundred million promoting it, even if you doubled the eyeballs (and, on top of that, removed all the revenue from the other distribution windows while you're at it) your revenue cap it still about 1.2million dollars. If memory serves me right, it about the revenue from the top youtube video of all time.

Piracy rates really aren't that high. I don't know the numbers, but last time I read anything about the numbers is was in the single digit range. 1 to 2% sounds about right, but may be as high as 5%. If you do put it out for free, you never know, it might double the audience. So instead of X people paying $10 per head, you'll get X*2 views and receive about $0.001 per eyeball.

I'm saying it's a great thought, but the numbers don't make enough sense for the film industry to adjust their window based distribution method entirely to a free/advertised model.

I know as a filmmaker, I'd rather earn a real living, rather than the 50c/hr which would be required to make this distribution method work.

Click to expand...

Ok, well you have clearly looked into the numbers far more then I which is good as it shows you are doing your homework. So what is the best option on the table that you have spotted? I think its in all of our interests to see you do well, so I'm happy to brainstorm with you.

The method that this OP posted is really interesting, and depending on the percentage, is a good deal.

This does assume a lot of things though. It assumes that the distributor will deliver what is promised. It also assumes that the distributors business plan has enough meat in it to keep them afloat. There's very little point in making a deal if the distributor will go broke in quick order. This is why creating win-win situations is key.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of factors that go into it. If you have the next Hunger Games, Star Wars, Matrix etc, then your key factor is picking a distributor that has a sufficient bankroll and reach to market and exploit your movie.

Another factor to consider, especially if you're looking at a cinematic release is the line up of the distributor. I've heard horror stories of small films from small distributors releasing cinematic films and the cinemas are slow to pay (if ever) since your only recourse is to sue to get your money, which would tie you up in court for many years. If the distributor releases 8 to 12 big releases every year, the cinema in question relies on a steady flow of movies to make money, so they need to pay their bills of they literally starve.

VOD is an area where I haven't done a lot of learning, so I may be off with this: When you're talking about distribution through VOD channels only, then there's less differentiation of who can get your movie on which platforms. For instance, there is a limited amount of houses that can get your movie on iTunes, though the distributors are going to have access to at least one of these houses. One thing is clear to me, it all comes down to external marketing and conversion to drive sales. This is where mailing lists really help. If your distributor (and yourself) has a mailing list appropriate for your genre, it may be a factor tipping it in their favor.

The home entertainment market, while shrinking is still a consideration. I've heard that it's shrinking more for the independents than the studios, but having the contacts to get your film into Walmart and the other retail majors. Walmart still drives a huge chunk of home entertainment sales in the US.

On top of that, some distributors are better for different genre's. For instance, Troma (I got the correct name, right?) is known for it's B grade crappy horror film distribution, so they have an in built market. If you have a movie like that, it'd probably be worth considering them or one of their competitors.

Then you can consider self distribution. It takes a lot of work and most of the time you're going to fail, though if you make it work, you get you keep all the money!

This also assumes one big thing. That any distributors are interested in your film in the first place. This is all a bunch of moot points if no one is interested or your deliverables aren't correct (which both happens more often than not).

Yep, theres the main rub, whoever distributes must have a go-to customer base, money to market to that customer base and bring in new customers, and have the knowledge, skills etc to grow from there, and thats all from day one...on top of that they have to convince directors that the company is worth going through also. no mean feat!!!

Do indie filmmakers ever just sell their films outright and say goodbye to them for a bigger chunk of cash up front than they would otherwise get with a "percentage of profits" deal?

Upsides I can think of...
-you don't have to worry about distributor honesty or competence
-more cash upfront could be used to fund your next project right away
-less stressful, less paperwork
-guaranteed money instead of gambling over long periods of time

Downsides I can think of...
-if the distributor sucks nobody might ever see your film
-they might change/alter/destroy your work which could give you a bad name
-miss out on potentially MORE money as the years go by if your film really catches fire


Seems to me if a reputable distributor wanted to buy my film and I could protect it from being altered in the contract, I might take this kind of deal for the peace of mind and forward momentum in my career.

It does happen. Paranormal Activity was sold to Dreamworks for a reported $350k in 2007 and released in 2009.

I've also heard of stories of companies buying films and shelving them, just in case that genre becomes hot or it may have interfered with a movie they were releasing themselves.

Sweetie said:

It does happen. Paranormal Activity was sold to Dreamworks for a reported $350k in 2007 and released in 2009.

I've also heard of stories of companies buying films and shelving them, just in case that genre becomes hot or it may have interfered with a movie they were releasing themselves.

Click to expand...

Old George Lucas...sold the rights to star wars for what was considered a lot of money at the time...but he also gave them full rights to any merchandising....merchandising went on to make mega bucks...Old George has been kicking himself ever since. Slightly off point I know but it highlights that there is more to a movie then just the story itself.

The story is a little different to that, but close enough.

Unless you're talking about his sale of LucasFilm and associated licenses and businesses to Disney? I suspect it's the former as I don't think he's kicking himself about the 4 billion dollar sale just yet.

FantasyFilmProductions said:

Old George Lucas...sold the rights to star wars for what was considered a lot of money at the time...but he also gave them full rights to any merchandising....merchandising went on to make mega bucks...Old George has been kicking himself ever since. Slightly off point I know but it highlights that there is more to a movie then just the story itself.

Click to expand...

Actually it's the complete opposite.

Fox offered Lucas a considerably higher directing fee for Star Wars than he had earned on American Graffiti, but Lucas instead negotiated a deal where he would receive the same lower fee for directing, but in turn would get all the rights to merchandising and possible sequels.
Back in those days merchandising wasn't what it is today, and Fox didn't have much faith in the movie and doubted any sequels would be made.

This deal made George Lucas a billionaire, and allowed him to produce all the rest of the Star Wars movies independently, 20th Century Fox just distributed them.