> VOD Indie Film Distribution Exploration

[I posted this in the "other" thread.]

We're talking VOD feature films here right?

Clearly genre makes a difference, and I agree with the article, if you've a low-cost product aimed at a viable target audience, one can still turn a profit on VOD and other alternative distribution options.

The key here is low cost. I'm in this business to make a profit -- odds are it won't happen, but every decision I'm making along the way is usually focused on that point -- not normal film making convention. In indie filmmaking, top notch equipment and a large crew does not lead to profit. That kind of money is better spent on marketing as the article suggested.

All this business & marketing stuff is mostly a buzzkill for starry-eyed filmmakers with RED cameras and cranes, is it not?
__________________

Been an off and on paid member of FilmSpecific.com for a year or so. Best resource you're going to find for hard information on how distro works on the net, what's not there you have to get into offices and in executive's faces--or other filmmakers, to find out.

VOD is viable. Trust. Before the lady Parks over at FS put this up we were already seeing that. I've had the opportunity to talk to a friend's dad (who's an employee of Verizon) and his words and wisdom on VOD wiped away another layer of confusing grime from my windshield.

Every passing day, self distro begins to sound like first plan out, not second... especially since we've got a VFX genre film.

GuerrillaAngel said:

[I posted this in the "other" thread.]


All this business & marketing stuff is mostly a buzzkill for starry-eyed filmmakers with RED cameras and cranes, is it not?
__________________

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. I'm a starry-eyed filmmaker with an Epic on my desk right now. I'm pixel-peeping GH2 hack footage to cut into Epic footage... and I'd wager that I spend almost equal to twenty five percent of that time looking at marketing, so on and so forth.

I've paid for Stacey's advice and sought out my own, sat in with film buyers, done all that.

Your generalizations are beginning to get annoying, to be honest.

Also, Selling your film without selling your soul is a fast read: I got it on my iPad for free the day it went up, read it on my way to Vegas for a shoot and it's not as informative as I would've hoped, but definitely worth the ticket price for case examples.

Re VOD Feature Films: Yes. I have no practical interest in the production or marketing of anything other than feature films and will pretty much limit my time investigating how to get my own future feature films to be commercially successful.

Re Low Cost: Agreed. When I was doing my 2010 Indie Films with Distribution thing that's exactly what I noticed. Within reason, the collective sensibilties of a group can guess that the interest in some genres and subjects is greater than in others.
Indie distributors can't force theater owners to order and show any more than a few of their products for a few weeks. The theater owners have a pretty good idea of what will put butts in chairs.

By noting how many reviews came in on specific films you can develop an idea that a lot of paying customers may have been interested in a film only to hate it after they've already paid to see it.

So, let's say I make a Sci-Fi feature of giant robots battling alien squids (whatever), it's probably safe to say I can sell more tickets for that than for my other Sci-Fi-Fantasy feature of semi-sentient zombie love and a zombie couple's moral dilema of eating the brains of ther children and family members.
Now, the reviews for the former may be absolutely horrible - but will sell more tickets.
The reviews for the latter may be fantastic - but will sell fewer tickets.

Which one makes a profit?

Well... obviously if I spent the same on both the robot/alien squid will be better than zombie dilema.
But if the budget for Robot/Alien Squid is sky high, then thhhp!

You're right: Low cost budget is key.
Go in low and slow for the right reasons.


Re Marketing.
Oh, H3LLL, YEAH!
Anyone pretty sure they ain't getting someone else to foot the distro bill might as well cut their production budget in half and earmark that for marketing.


Re "buzzkill for starry-eyed filmmakers with RED cameras and cranes, is it not?"
Then they should avert their eyes.
They can read what this thread is about. They're adults.
If the subject doesn't interest them - then quit lookin' at the [expletive] thread.
Simple enough.

Nah, IndieTalk serves more rookie sub-RED nube viewers than those with REDs.
This information is meant for anyone ready to take that next step from shooting all your audio on camera.
When you are big enough to go from a one man show to a camera/director and a boom guy then you're begining to get into the potential to find distribution for your final product.

Those transition members are who this thread is for.

I'm already hunting this information down.
Might as well display a smidge of altruism once in a while.
No nead for everyone to go figure out how to make fire. I can/might be able to teach.
Might.

Kholi said:

Every passing day, self distro begins to sound like first plan out, not second...

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the increasing understanding I'm seeing.
Whereas before I thought the optimal route was to ALWAYS try to begin with theatrical release, and then everything below that was a compromise, with VOD being the distro of last resort, - now - I'm seeing that if you KNOW your feature isn't really going to theatrical quality material then budget accordingly and just go straight to VOD with some sensible expectation of recouping expenses.

You just gotta design the whole thing from square one with that as a plan.

http://www.filmthreat.com/page/7/?s="going+bionic"


Posted on May 18, 2010 http://www.filmthreat.com/features/21996/

While film festivals showcase budding and established talent, support independent visions and explore unconventional story telling, film markets care about one thing and one thing only: selling product.

... most of the films at film markets are not the type of films that get into film festivals. The exact opposite is usually also true, as several film festival films have less of a commercial appeal needed to thrive at film markets. Thus, when you’re making your film, you should consider which route suits your film best; a critically acclaimed film festival run, or sales at various film markets with virtually no acclaim. Both routes are valid and smart; it just depends on the needs of each specific project. Of course, in rare cases, you can have both.


Posted on May 25, 2010 http://www.filmthreat.com/features/22250/
Only certain genres sell well internationally. What are these “best bet” genres?
1) Action – which are always a slam-dunk.
2) Thrillers – which often do well.
3) Sci-Fi – which are the hottest genre these days, since replacing the dying demand of horror films.
The reason why these genres perform so well is because audiences don’t have to know the language in which these films were made, in order to understand their basic story.

When it comes to comedies, romantic comedies, dramas, coming-of-age films, personal stories, family films, horror films and most documentaries – you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do of enjoying healthy sales internationally.

In fact, there’s been so many horror films made lately, that they have saturated their own market to the point that they’re virtually worthless.


Posted on June 8, 2010 http://www.filmthreat.com/features/22500/
Eleven key Film Festival Strategies (not Film Market):
1) Submit A Completed Film – Not A Rough Cut.
2) Shorter Is Better. (85 to 95min feature)
3) Avoid Student Film Markers. (littered with drugs, weapons, nudity and foul language).
4) It’s Where You Start, Not Where You Finish. (Don't disqualify yourself from the largest festivals).
5) Be Careful Not To Play Too Many Festivals. (If everyone's seen it who's the distributor to show)?
6) Hide Your Treasure Before Your Premiere. (Let your film PREMIER at its premier).
7) Don’t Hold Back DVD Copies From Distributors.
9) Construct A Great Website And Viral Campaign. (I'm surprised this isn't higher on the list).
10) Get Film Festivals Engaged Early On.
11) Don’t Burn Bridges With Festivals. (Be professional. Take any losses like an adult).


Posted on June 15, 2010 http://www.filmthreat.com/features/22640/
Three key points that every filmmaker should know about the world of online distribution outside of your home country.
1) Always Have Internet Rights Clearly Defined.
2) Define Exact Territorial Boundaries On Sales.
3) Send “Cease and Desist” Letters To Violators.


Page 2: [/I]http://www.filmthreat.com/page/6/?s="going+bionic"

Posted on June 22, 2010 :http://www.filmthreat.com/features/22843/
Thus, filmmakers will usually have to wait 18-24 months to get paid on their domestic DVD deal.

The beautiful thing about selling your DVD rights to international companies is you generally get paid far quicker than doing a domestic deal. The difference is the foreign entities are paying a flat (negotiated) fee for your film. So, the first time you get paid will also be the last time you get paid on the deal.

Advances Are Generally Viewed As First And Last Payments To Filmmakers Many distributors have an innate belief that if they pay a filmmaker an advance then they don’t ever have to pay that filmmaker a dime on the deal again.

Netflix Should Be Last On Your Dance Card, Not First Many filmmakers don’t realize that selling your film to Netflix too early in the process will virtually kill most of your viable sales.


Posted on July 5, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/23275/
Listing Of Percentages From Territories
These are general guidelines on what percentage of your budget you should get from sales to the following territories. They are based on budgets between $5-$15 million, so smaller films will skew a bit lower. These rates, for example, are quoted from The Hollywood Reporter’s “The Going Rate” listing published on October 30, 2009:
Britain 7%-10%
Germany 7%-10%
France 6%-7%
Italy 4%-6%
Spain 3%-5%
Scandi [Navia] 1.5%-2.5%
Netherlands 1.5%-2.5%
Russia 2%-3%
All others in Eastern Europe 1%
Japan 0%-5%
Australia 2%-4%
South Korea 1.5%-2.5%
All Territories in Latin America 2%-3%
India, China, Mideast, Turkey, South Africa 2%



A generally useful article on screenplays as they relate to the final film product.
Posted on August 3, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/23966/




Gotta go.
Will return later for more.

Kholi said:

Your generalizations are beginning to get annoying, to be honest.

Click to expand...

I used the word "mostly", didn't I? It can't be a generalization when most of us, even those who are frugal aren't making money. The key here is the math doesn't pan out for most indie projects. The idea is to fix it so it does.

Anyway, Kholi, if I've got you fired up enough to prove me wrong about this, then I'm doing something right.

3) Sci-Fi – which are the hottest genre these days, since replacing the dying demand of horror films.

Click to expand...

This is something I've my eye on closely . . . I've a few potential sci-fi projects in "development". Does this window show any sign of closing?

GuerrillaAngel said:

Does this window show any sign of closing?

Click to expand...

I have little read on fickle industry's consumer pulse year to year, but I can totally believe there's a glut of (poorly made) horror and a stable demand for stimulating sci-fi.

Please, pursue your projects.

FWIW, I've a few sci-fi stories in the screenplay hopper myself (plus another half-dozen chillin' on the back nine), neither of which I'll have the budget to pursue so maybe I peddle them off to the Wood.

rayw said:

Yeah, that's the increasing understanding I'm seeing.
Whereas before I thought the optimal route was to ALWAYS try to begin with theatrical release, and then everything below that was a compromise, with VOD being the distro of last resort, - now - I'm seeing that if you KNOW your feature isn't really going to theatrical quality material then budget accordingly and just go straight to VOD with some sensible expectation of recouping expenses.

You just gotta design the whole thing from square one with that as a plan.

Click to expand...

You can still do theatrical release on your own, you just need to target smaller chains and know how to work out deals to exhibit. Digital theaters, in particular, because you could get away with sending G-Raid hard drive with the DCP of your project and you're done.

DCP's are cheap to make, an free if you do enough research/testing.

All avenues belong to you in the digital age, on the other hand... you need to have time to explore them and do the work. If you're planning on doing more than one project, this will be tricky.

GuerrillaAngel said:

I used the word "mostly", didn't I? It can't be a generalization when most of us, even those who are frugal aren't making money. The key here is the math doesn't pan out for most indie projects. The idea is to fix it so it does.

Anyway, Kholi, if I've got you fired up enough to prove me wrong about this, then I'm doing something right.

Click to expand...

You used mostly before buzzkill, you're generalizing filmmakers or people who value better gear. You do it often. Just because you think it doesn't matter and you don't want to use it doesn't mean others think the same. Nor does it mean that those people are only invested in gear, and not the other side of the sport.

It's pretty clear that you're learning in this topic, which means you haven't done your research. This stuff's old news to me, and yeah, I'm a pixel-peeper.

You haven't gotten me fired up, again, it's just becoming annoying to pop into a thread and read your comments. I'm not trying to be a jerk, take it with a grain of salt, but it's getting to be too much.

This is something I've my eye on closely . . . I've a few potential sci-fi projects in "development". Does this window show any sign of closing?

Click to expand...

The important thing to remember is when people say Sci-Fi they mean VFX: like horror, if you aren't delivering aliens or spectacle then you aren't Sci-Fi to a general audience. The bold is to define the category.

If you're doing VFX Sci-Fi, then no it's not going anywhere any time soon. Mostly due to the opened-arm reception of foreign markets. Shooting on a low enough budget and producing a solid enough image (production value is still important for a trailer), you will get interest from foreign outlets.


Chances are you're going to still work with a rep or agent going overseas, they'll want a very obvious trailer and a solid poster. You don't have it, you don't have money.

If you're not working with VFX, you still need to target smaller, passionate audiences. As in, doing Sci-Fi without any spectacle, and catering to a sub-culture of very technical geeks or similar. The trailer, poster production values really don't matter here.

Like I said, I could make a feature about a horse with a poisoned ass or a boy and his pair of pet turtles and I'd sell plenty straight-to-consumer without ever having to try.

rayw said:

I have little read on fickle industry's consumer pulse year to year, but I can totally believe there's a glut of (poorly made) horror and a stable demand for stimulating sci-fi.

Please, pursue your projects.

FWIW, I've a few sci-fi stories in the screenplay hopper myself (plus another half-dozen chillin' on the back nine), neither of which I'll have the budget to pursue so maybe I peddle them off to the Wood.

Click to expand...

Kinda stated above, but the problem with that is just the general sci-fi idea. That takes a little money.

Also, fantasy is becoming hyper-popular. By Fantasy I mean knights, magic, dragons, so on and so forth. Keep that one in mind.

When you apply all of this to VOD, one of the most important things to remember is that you have to actually remain on the VOD charts to see your split of each rental/purchase. Depending on your deal, you've got a certain amount of days (window) that you have to show results in before you either drop low or completely.

The priority chain is no different than any other service for movies: REDBOX, theatrical, television, so on and so forth... each of these will always put major motion pictures or productions with names before your no name no budget picture. You can compete by having a very general production with decent value, and by taking advantage of the option to stream a trailer VOD. Albeit a very short one so you don't shoot yourself in the foot.

What you're likely to pick up are people bored on weeknights, families looking to pass the time before or after dinner, sunday snoozers so on and so forth.

If your VOD provider's got 50M people hitting "buy", you only need a tiny fraction of those to make sustainable bank, and the types that I just mentioned can fill that in swiftly.

That's just sort of scratching the surface, though. It goes pretty deep and expands.

Kholi said:

you're generalizing filmmakers or people who value better gear. You do it often. Just because you think it doesn't matter and you don't want to use it doesn't mean others think the same. Nor does it mean that those people are only invested in gear, and not the other side of the sport.

Click to expand...

This argument works both ways. While we can never know for sure, but the collective membership of this forum seemingly puts gear ahead of story and turning a profit. It likely reflects the thinking of many indie filmmakers in general (who are not part of this forum).

So I'm anti-gear first, others may not be. Just because I'm consistent with my anti-gear thinking doesn't make me wrong.

I've been approached or struck up conversations by other filmmakers (or wanna be filmmakers) and it is ALWAYS gear first, story later, maybe. In a way, this is good, I don't want to work with filmmakers whose primary concern is financing a RED.

Now if I was approached by a filmmaker with a compelling story and a well thought out plan that would result in a completed film AND allow for a RED, I'd listen.

And, yes, I agree, VFX may be an important part assuring the success of a sci-fi film.
------------

I am not sure why you're stooping to ad hominem comments -- there are a heck of a lot things I find annoying, but generally keep these things to myself. You also can't possibly know what I'm "still learning" -- it's just an assumption on your part.

rayw said:

a stable demand for stimulating sci-fi. Please, pursue your projects.

Click to expand...

You betcha.

All of this has the potential to come off with the wrong tone; it's not meant that way.

GuerrillaAngel said:

This argument works both ways. While we can never know for sure, but the collective membership of this forum seemingly puts gear ahead of story and turning a profit. It likely reflects the thinking of many indie filmmakers in general (who are not part of this forum).

Click to expand...

It's not an argument, at all. There's no tone here, and I agree that you are consistently anti-gear. I personally am not concerned with right or wrong, this thread wasn't about gear... so, what was the purpose of making such a generalized and unfounded comment?

You present your perspective on "people whom think gear is important" as an absolute truth. Is it?

I am not sure why you're stooping to ad hominem comments -- there are a heck of a lot things I find annoying, but generally keep these things to myself.

Click to expand...

Where's an ad hominem comment? Me saying that some of your more repetitive comments are becoming annoying? I did that; guilty.

You also can't possibly know what I'm "still learning" -- it's just an assumption on your part.

Click to expand...

Do you know the inner workings of VOD in and out? Do you have any information to present that helps the thread's purpose? Other than "marketing is more important than gear"? Looks like you're asking questions, to me.

The bottom line's simple: you have your way of working, others have theirs. I don't see anyone commenting regularly on a general community of filmmakers that may choose to put the more technical (gear-related) side of industry at the bottom of their list.

Kholi said:

I don't see anyone commenting regularly on a general community of filmmakers that may choose to put the more technical (gear-related) side of industry at the bottom of their list.

Click to expand...

In a nice tone, Maybe a few more should. I'm saying the (gear) industry pushes newer, better, faster, and cooler gear on indie filmmakers in order to keep $$$ rolling in. They're NOT going to make that much money from Hollywood because there are only "x" number of people in the biz. Indie filmmakers? THAT pit is bottomless. If gear manufactors can get them to drop their perfectly servicable 2-year-old gear for the latest and the greatest, they're rolling in gravy.

This illusion that the best gear (how many time do we see a thread that starts with "what is the best . . .") is necessary to make a great film, is just that, an illusion. Gear freaks can have their fun with their toys -- no problem, but some filmmakers need to be reminded of the illusion and to stay focused on a plan to get their film completed. 2 or 4 year old equipment might just the ticket to acheiving that goal.

Still in a nice tone.

re: VOD, I'm still exploring that avenue and have been for a while.

GuerrillaAngel said:

re: VOD, I'm still exploring that avenue and have been for a while.

Click to expand...

What?!
Oh!
re. There's a VOD thread in here?

Seriously: You guys are fine.
I really don't care.


FWIW, (Since you two are beating away at this here, WTH, I might as well chime in w/ my 2¢), I see & understand GA's point of concern that the hardware industry is FANTASTIC at separating fools from their money.
"If only I had Shakespeare's pen... " LOL! Dumb@sses.
I just don't think it's much of an issue.
There's always been fools and idiots.
There always will be fools and idiots, and probably in greater percentages as our cushy society protects them from eliminating themselves from the gene pool.
I have no interest in propagating another crop O' idiots, so - let 'em hang themselves. I don't care. F#ck 'em.

Likewise, I think Kholi's correct that IT's regularly participating membership is smart enough to see this, so his/your concern about anyone mistaking GA's provocative generalizations is as equally over-concerned as GA's concerned that the tech-heads ruin the filmmaking process.
Anyone not bright enough to see through GA's provocative stances (which I actually enjoy and support, BTW) deserves to get into whatever trouble they find themselves as a result of integrating it as canon.
Again, I don't care. F#ck 'em.

But in the nicest way through sheer neglect.

OH! And this has also been meant in a nice tone. LOL!



NOW... !
I don't suppose either of you EXPERIENCED peeps could actually part with some ON TOPIC info regarding video on demand, could you?

GA - I know you have at least one feature bagged & tagged. Whatchugot?
Super K - I suspect you've immersed yourself in the subject longer than I have. Whatchugot?

rayw said:

NOW... !
I don't suppose either of you EXPERIENCED peeps could actually part with some ON TOPIC info regarding video on demand, could you?

GA - I know you have at least one feature bagged & tagged. Whatchugot?
Super K - I suspect you've immersed yourself in the subject longer than I have. Whatchugot?

Click to expand...

Kholi said:

Also, fantasy is becoming hyper-popular. By Fantasy I mean knights, magic, dragons, so on and so forth. Keep that one in mind.

When you apply all of this to VOD, one of the most important things to remember is that you have to actually remain on the VOD charts to see your split of each rental/purchase. Depending on your deal, you've got a certain amount of days (window) that you have to show results in before you either drop low or completely.

The priority chain is no different than any other service for movies: REDBOX, theatrical, television, so on and so forth... each of these will always put major motion pictures or productions with names before your no name no budget picture. You can compete by having a very general production with decent value, and by taking advantage of the option to stream a trailer VOD. Albeit a very short one so you don't shoot yourself in the foot.

What you're likely to pick up are people bored on weeknights, families looking to pass the time before or after dinner, sunday snoozers so on and so forth.

If your VOD provider's got 50M people hitting "buy", you only need a tiny fraction of those to make sustainable bank, and the types that I just mentioned can fill that in swiftly.

That's just sort of scratching the surface, though. It goes pretty deep and expands.

Click to expand...

xD Hahaha. From earlier on.

There are also sources out there that will tell you exactly how much money you're looking at if you manage to strike a VOD deal yourself, without any middleman. I've got some, but I haven't cross-checked them with actual service providers just yet. Because of that, I don't think it's fair/right to share.

You can basically apply all of the old rules to this, with the most important point being "stay on the list" for as long as you can.

Edit: By the way, Stacey P over at FilmSpecific had a talk with Gravitas, which is pretty much the most serious independent VOD supplier around. It's a paid-for thing, though, which means you need to be a member.

Kholi said:

...but I haven't cross-checked them with actual service providers just yet. Because of that, I don't think it's fair/right to share.

You can basically apply all of the old rules to this, with the most important point being "stay on the list" for as long as you can.

Edit: By the way, Stacey P over at FilmSpecific had a talk with Gravitas, which is pretty much the most serious independent VOD supplier around. It's a paid-for thing, though, which means you need to be a member.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

What do you mean by "stay on the list" for as long as you can?
Work your own marketing magic to cultivate a sustaining interest in your own film being hosted by a VOD distributor/supplier?

re Gravitas
http://www.gravitasventures.com/why-vod/
http://www.gravitasventures.com/why-vod/why-gravitas/
http://www.gravitasventures.com/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitas_Ventures

So, how big of a fish is Gravitas? With it being a private company it's hard to judge. TIA.
Market looks wildly fragmented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_on_demand_services



Hmm... more homework...
"New Video is a leading entertainment distributor and the largest aggregator of independent digital content worldwide."
http://www.newvideo.com/about/about-new-video/
I wish I had a chart with some legit, quantifiable numbers on it.

Grrr... I love attorneys dancing on the heads of pins:
"As the world’s largest independent digital video distributor,... "
http://www.newvideo.com/about/about-new-video-digital/
Okay. So... who's the world's largest digital video distributor WITHOUT any qualifiers, like "independent"?
And WTH is "independent" supposed to convey to the unabashedly ignorant, such as myself?



Another homework score!
"Starting today you will all have access to a brand new, twice-monthly column about the distribution channel known as Video on Demand. "
http://moviebuzzers.com/2012/01/25/...e-kevin-smith-tim-erics-billion-dollar-movie/
Think I can keep up with a single twice a month column?
I'd be surprised.

rayw said:

Fair enough.

What do you mean by "stay on the list" for as long as you can?
Work your own marketing magic to cultivate a sustaining interest in your own film being hosted by a VOD distributor/supplier?

Click to expand...

It's part drive (marketing, if that's what you want to call it when you have no money xD) and part product. I'm gonna have an easier time with my initial window and then my staying period with a very well produced horror film than I will with a horribly produced horror film.

That's just the way it works.

Start early, building a fan base, and that will help your numbers. And, I am hearing some pretty generous numbers these days that leave me hopeful that what I thought was the wrong move as a first feature was the right one for going forward.

So, how big of a fish is Gravitas? With it being a private company it's hard to judge. TIA.
Market looks wildly fragmented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_on_demand_services

Click to expand...

Major Fish.

What's important to know is that none of these people do marketing for you: that's your issue to deal with. It doesn't really matter what Gravitas has on their site, it only matters that they are the middle man between you and the programmers through these outlets (VOD Cable and INternet--hulu, iTunes, so on and so forth) and they're not going to put money in to push your material.

The loss to gains ratio is too great to do that. So, yeah, they look bleak but research and investigation with filmmakers etc. reveals that they are the primetime company for people like us to get in bed with, if that's your path.

If you're going on your own, well, different story.

Kholi said:

1 - Start early, building a fan base, and that will help your numbers.

2 - What's important to know is that none of these people do marketing for you: that's your issue to deal with. It doesn't really matter what Gravitas has on their site, it only matters that they are the middle man between you and the programmers through these outlets (VOD Cable and INternet--hulu, iTunes, so on and so forth) and they're not going to put money in to push your material.

3 - If you're going on your own, well, different story.

Click to expand...

1 - AAAAMEN. Pretty much what I figured. Thanks for confirming.
2 - Sounds like any store: they'll shelve your product, but it's up to you to advertise any way you see fit, and if the product isn't moving off their shelves they'll just quit putting it there to begin with.
3 - I was wondering about this, actually.
So, since I'm responsible for conducting all the marketing to direct traffic to my own film, what's the point of using "Distributor A" vs. "Distributor "B" who both farm their aggregated content out to various suppliers, which are often the same suppliers?

How does using a distributor company provide benefit over a DIY distribution if all my customers end up at "Supplier Z" through my efforts?
Whatsit matter?

rayw said:

1 - AAAAMEN. Pretty much what I figured. Thanks for confirming.

Click to expand...

Trust that facebook fans and twitter followers mean something to distros in 2012. Press as well. If you've gotten your material to content applicable major blogs you are several steps ahead of yourself.

2 - Sounds like any store: they'll shelve your product, but it's up to you to advertise any way you see fit, and if the product isn't moving off their shelves they'll just quit putting it there to begin with.

Click to expand...

Yup. What's the point in serving content nobody knows about over stuff people want to buy? Can't fault them. Business to run.

3 - I was wondering about this, actually.
So, since I'm responsible for conducting all the marketing to direct traffic to my own film, what's the point of using "Distributor A" vs. "Distributor "B" who both farm their aggregated content out to various suppliers, which are often the same suppliers?

Click to expand...

THAT is the question: why? There are a lot of benefits to both ways. The most obvious for the filmmaker is taking control of your dollar amounts, but sometimes these distributors can get more money for your project because of their connections.

You may also get "favors" for marketing, even though you're doing it yourself. Say, it may cost you such and such to attack some hot spots on the net, but they get a better deal and you can go through them for that.

It should be weighed which one is the right way to go, and it never has to be one or the other. You could use Gravitas for Cable and take on web yourself, or the other way around.

How does using a distributor company provide benefit over a DIY distribution if all my customers end up at "Supplier Z" through my efforts?
Whatsit matter?

Click to expand...

Also, remember, although we're only talking VOD outlets (web and television), there's are at least two to three other markets that you have to attack to maximize your return and profits, and saturation. Producer's reps or agents can help you get to those.

Either or mentalities are fine, but you can always find a way to mix your game.

Selling your film without selling your soul aggregates case studies like these, check it.

Ugh! This does look sick!:
Posted on August 10, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/24146/


Posted on August 17, 2010: http://www.filmthreat.com/features/24148/
"Platform Releases
This is the kind of release you want for your brilliant independent film, and you want it with Fox Searchlight. A platform release is strategically placing your film on a few screens in key cities and utilizing critical acclaim word-of-mouth to carry it forward.

Four Walling
This is the dangerous art of renting a theatrical screen from a theater or multiplex and showing your film on it. It’s simple. If your box office receipts eclipse your rental fee, you’re in profit. If not, you lose. Either way, the theater wins because they still get a healthy rental fee from you regardless whether the film hits or not.

The Exhibitor And Distributors Split
Generally speaking, a little over half of the domestic box office stays with the exhibitors (the theaters). While it’s true that major distributors will demand 90% of the opening weekend box office for their “tent pole” releases, most films released can’t command such a fee. Besides, even the 90/10 opening weekend split gets more favorable for the exhibitor week after week.

Breaking Even Theatrically
Because the distributor gets slightly less than half of the total domestic box office gross, it’s widely believed theatrical releases must make 2.5 to 3 times their budget to break even. Of course, that assumption does not take international box office, DVD, cable, V.O.D. and TV sales into account. These all contribute toward helping a film break even. But, even with all of these ancillary markets, less than 20% of theatrical releases ever break even."



Posted on August 31, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/25211/
"Since your international distributor is charging you a “market fee” to cover the expenses of taking your film to several film markets, you must find out what markets they are attending and which ones are they “boothing” at."
I guess that partially answers my question to Kholi about WTH's the point of using a distributor rather than a DIY campaign - assuming you have a worthy product, of course.



Just read the first two paragraphs. (Third won't hurt, either):
Posted on September 7, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/25213/
"Since perception is everything in Hollywood, it’s important to always be seen as a success. Simply put, having the perception of being a person who made a micro-budgeted film that turned a profit is far more impressive than being seen as a person who made a healthy budgeted indie film that tanked.

Remember, not only do distributors usually know what a film costs just by looking at it, they also always know what a film is worth just by looking at it.

Thus, the notion, “see what I can do with $6,000 so imagine what I can do with $6,000,000,” never works. This is because distributors usually don’t trust six thousand dollar filmmakers with six million dollar budgets, unless those six thousand dollar films make six million dollars."

This seems very true:
"Tell Tale Signs A Film’s Budget is Far Smaller Than A Filmmaker Claims
Too many close-up shots, too few (or no) extras walking around in the background and limited locations are all obvious signs that a film didn’t cost much to make. Furthermore, small films tend to feel claustrophobic, because there are no overhead shots or wide shots. So, even if filmmakers need to go small with their budgets, they need to think big with the scope of how they execute it."



This entire article seemed fairly "No sh!t, Sherlock", but unfortunately should be reiterated whenever possible.
Posted on September 14, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/25416/



Posted on September 21, 2010 : http://www.filmthreat.com/features/25598/
"Remember, a film that hits in a few big cities and nowhere else is usually a film that nobody outside of film critics and rabid film geeks have ever heard of. The key is to be a hit in all of the places you think don’t matter, because it’s those places that matter the most. Thus, if you’re a hit in New York and L.A. you may win a few awards, but, if people in Kansas and Tennessee are talking about your film, you may buy a few mansions. That’s why several independent films released theatrically start on a few screens in New York and Los Angeles, and then work their way to the middle. It’s the middle that counts, because your success between the coasts will publicly define how successful you are."