Comments on: Can we please stop calling it “self distribution?”

By: Henry M. Jameson

Henry M. Jameson — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:08:47 +0000

Just recently Robert Redford commented on the state of indie film distribution and screening, admitting he is ‘drowning’ in the size of the event, as he launches second film festival in London. HasSundance got too big? That’s for others to decide,” said Redford. “Has it got too big for me? Probably, in the sense that I realised I’d been drowning in it. So now I’m content to just step in periodically to ensure it stays true to its original purpose, and make sure it doesn’t spend too much time raising

For experimental film and first-time projects createspace.com is a good choice. Don’t judge a book by its cover, in this case the design of the site (hopefully amazon will improve this) soon. It offers free tools and a fraction of the cost of traditional manufacturing. It is essentially on-demand, and not a vanity service, so worth checking out.

For newer players, doc-filmmakers and professional producers, filmbay.com is a good choice. For English-language content and foreign-language content, they offer worldwide distribution. Also VOD. Video-On-Demand, Filmmaker keeps 97%, Player mobility, Complemetary Social Media Marketing, Reach, Reliability, Track Record, Exposure & Visibility; Ad Revenue-Share, Lump-sum (cool) Payment, Access to major distributors, Access to itunes, Netflix, Amazon, Home for Shorts, Docs & Features, No set-Up Cost, IMDB integration, Highest Revenue Share; with cross-platform (from web news).

Ideally, other services might be useful as well, maybe compilations, especially for shortfilms. Submission to a film festival is always worth considering, too. That can help get more publicity and audience exposure. The film industry should get more credit for the contribution it makes to the wider economy, according to Robert Redford. Independent film has always had to struggle for a place in the universe,” he said, calling for extra funding to aid the exhibition and distribution of non-mainstream titles. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22278100

By: yojang

yojang — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:16:38 +0000

I agree with what Chris Dorr has to say.
True that if a film maker decides he can actually leverage the new and innovative tools coming up and make more out of it thus also reaching to a larger and global audience, I think the time has come when to rethink about the traditional model of film distribution.
This will really change the way film are distributed!

By: Michael Medeiros

Michael Medeiros — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:52:56 +0000

Marc, this is fabulous. Thank you. We’ve made a film that has a real chance of making it’s costs back. Esp. if we receive a fair share of the BO.
–Michael, director -Tiger Lily Road. On FB: tigerlilyroadmovie. Website in progress.

By: Douglas Horn

Douglas Horn — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:43:14 +0000

The term self-distribution is accurate enough and actually quite a neutral term. There’s no pejorative but what filmmakers choose to hear or a few out-of-touch distribution execs attempt to intone. Traditional distribution always had challenges for independents. What’s changed is that there are more opportunities now for filmmakers to do an end run around those traditional distributors who rarely served their needs.

Creating some clunky new name for self-distribution won’t change people’s perception (except to make it more laughable). But as more films are self-distributed–and successfully so–the term will lose whatever taint it may have to some, and quite possibly become a badge of honor for filmmakers taking their distribution into their own hands.

By: Jonathan Schiefer

Jonathan Schiefer — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:52:13 +0000

Marc,

I enjoyed the article. You made some great points. I also agree with your distaste for any diminutive term that in any way lessens the value of the work of collaborators. However, as I’m gearing up to make my next two features, my primary motive for considering alternative distribution isn’t about ownership, but about creative control. I have very clear visions for my movies and the notion that because someone has money that somehow makes their ideas more valuable is… distasteful. I hope to collaborate with studios or production companies, but not at the cost of making a bad movie.

Anyway, thanks for the great post, and I’ll be shifting my language from self-distribution to alternative distribution.

By: jim

jim — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:16:39 +0000

nomenclature isn’t holding back the independent film making industry.
but rather poseurs who “write” crap like this article and pass it off as the new gospel. please……

By: Jason @ Filmmaking Stuff

Jason @ Filmmaking Stuff — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:46:18 +0000

Great post. Since successfully releasing our first feature, I have always tried to avoid the term self-distribution. It’s archaic.

Thanks for bringing us up to date.

Jason
Filmmaking Stuff

By: Jon eiss

Jon eiss — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:33:56 +0000

Great post Marc – and the one on rockstars! Also lets nix DIY to describe this as well. Its almost never DIY. Direct Distribution is much better or as Topspin and others say Direct to Fan. I like Mike Masnicks cwf+rtb=$

By: Sheri Candler

Sheri Candler — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:32:51 +0000

How about the term direct distribution as you can sell directly to your audience (the one you spent so much of your own time cultivating) without having to pass through a siphon of cash guzzlers on the way to profit? There is a difference between hiring your own team (whom you do pay, but they don’t own your film) and relying on the team your middleman (who does own your film) does or doesn’t put together to service their whole library (as you point out in the piece).

My fervent hope in the near future is this will just be called distribution, and the old way will be called a cop out or lazy or the path of the unsavvy filmmaker.

Media should stop reporting that films don’t have distribution because that is completely the choice of the filmmaker. EVERY film has distribution options now.

By: Brian Newman

Brian Newman — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:44:32 +0000

Great post Marc. It’s funny, I met with an industry person who asked me “where the f is the self in Shane’s distribution. He has a whole army of professionals helping him from Sundance artist services, to bookers, to aggregators, etc.” It’s not self distribution, it’s smart distribution (when done right).

By: Chris Dorr

Chris Dorr — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:36:04 +0000

Marc, another great post. Distribution is simply distribution whether carried out by a team that a filmmaker assembles him or herself or done thru a traditional distributor. Think for a moment about George Lucas. He essentially rented 20th Century Fox for the release of his Star Wars franchise. He did not sell his rights to them. He owned the movie and told Fox exactly how to release the movie and how much to spend. Yes, he was able to get this deal because of Star Wars enormous success–that is true–so he is not like most filmmakers. However, with all the new tools and approaches to raising money and building communities with social media around movies that you mention, and that are available today–any filmmaker who has the time and inclination can essentially construct a similar model to Lucas–even at a much lower scale. And can succeed at it–and often make more money than going the traditional route.