In the year and a half since Brian Newman wrote his very apt and memorable post, “Killing the Film Fest Panel,” panels haven’t improved much. In that time, I’ve spoken on or moderated over a dozen panels, …]]>

Producer Peter Phok and I speaking on a panel at IFP’s Filmmaker Conference.

In the year and a half since Brian Newman wrote his very apt and memorable post, “Killing the Film Fest Panel,” panels haven’t improved much. In that time, I’ve spoken on or moderated over a dozen panels, and it seems that panel organizers haven’t really taken Brian’s suggestions to heart. The majority of film panels remain as excruciatingly boring and useless as ever.

So, let’s try a different tack: I propose that we panelists and moderators step up our game and give the (sometimes paying) audiences a better panel. Here’s how:

1. Be succint. This is the golden rule of panel-speaking. Way too often, I feel like I’m being held hostage by a long-winded moderator or panelist. I see the eyelids of audience members flitting with sleep as the Run-D.M.C. lyrics, “You talk too much, you never shut up,” loop in my head. Speakers (and everyone else for that matter) should learn how to say more with less words. Time on panels and time in life is limited, so please stop wasting it.

2. Stay on topic. It’s OK to go off on a tangent once in a while if it’s relevant and instructive, but people came to hear you based on the topic that was advertised. So do your best to keep reminding yourself what your panel is about, and what key questions the audience expects you to answer.

3. Know your audience. Tailor what you say to who’s in the audience–directors vs. producers vs. press vs. laypeople, etc.–and the level of their film knowledge. I always like to poll the audience at the start of each panel to find out who’s in it. Also, ask the panel organizer or festival programmer about the audience composition.

4. Be specific & universal at the same time. Your expertise is based primarily on your own particular experiences, so it’s good to offer specific anecdotes, but only if they can be applied broadly. Don’t be an obvious shill for your specific agenda and interests–always frame them in terms of how the audience might apply them to their own experiences. However, be careful not to go to the other extreme and start speaking in vague platitudes. It’s alarming how many mantra-like tweets emerge from panels–it’s just a stupid panel, not an evangelical mass. And remember: nobody knows anything anyway.

5. Be conversational. Don’t talk at people, talk with people. The most interesting panels are interactive. I love engaging in genuine conversations with my co-panelists or audience members. To me, dialogues are almost always more compelling and instructive than monologues.

6. Be flexible & organic. This relates to the preceding point. If you are too stubborn about making certain points, or too rigid in your delivery, people will get bored. Like in a film production, you must allow for “happy accidents,” so listen to what your co-panelists are saying and react to them.

7. Be honest & real. Audiences aren’t stupid; they can tell when you’re being phony. Also, share as much insider info and data as you can without violating your confidentiality clauses or threatening your own livelihood.

8. Don’t be boring. You are on a stage with a mic in front of a captive audience. Say something provocative or crack a joke every now and then!

9. Moderators: Don’t be afraid to cut people off. This one is just for the moderators. Don’t be afraid of reminding panelists how much time they have left or cutting them off and bringing them back down to earth. You guys are the “ADs” of panels. It’s your job to keep things moving and on track!

10. Audiences: Don’t pitch your own projects in the Q&A. OK, this one’s a postscript, but I gotta say it because this is such a common problem. I’m sure your project is very interesting, but no one came to that panel to hear about it. So please keep it to yourself, and just ask your question–which will be broadly applicable and succinct, of course!

(photo by eye of einstein)

One thing is clear. For independent cinema to grow and thrive, it needs to find a more sustainable business model. And while there’s been a lot of hype around new forms of “alternative” (or “direct”) distribution, few people have an answer to …]]>

(photo by eye of einstein)

One thing is clear. For independent cinema to grow and thrive, it needs to find a more sustainable business model. And while there’s been a lot of hype around new forms of “alternative” (or “direct”) distribution, few people have an answer to the sixty-four thousand dollar question: “How does this new approach to distribution make me more money than the older more “traditional” approach?”

Akin to the old catch-phrase “Where’s the beef?”, today smart filmmakers are asking “Where’s the business model?”

Having spent the last three years analyzing all aspects of independent cinema in incredible detail (from production to marketing to distribution), I’ve developed my own answer to this question, which I put forth in the form of an equation. With the recent launch of BOND360, I’m calling it the “360 Equation”:

Community + Data + Content Bundling + Dynamic Pricing = $$$

Treated separately, none of these elements (Community, Data, Content Bundling, and Dynamic Pricing) will on their own bring financial success. They are only pieces of a much larger puzzle. But when you put all of them together, and execute them well (that’s the hard part), they form a very potent combination. And if you develop and distribute your film in a certain way, adopting the 360 equation will definitely bring in more revenue for an independent film than any of the alternatives, including the more “traditional” ones.

So first, let’s break down each component:

Community:  Today when people hear the word “community” they immediately think that their community equates to the number of fans and followers their film has on Facebook and Twitter. And while this is indeed a form of community, in itself its not at all what community is about. Today, filmmakers are being pressured by consultants to arbitrarily increase the number of their social media fans, all the while without being given any direction on how they should be using them most effectively. But how many fans is “enough”? 500? 5,000? 50,000? The number is completely arbitrary. The reality is that true results from a community comes from its quality, not its quantity. Having over the last twenty years worked on more community based projects than I can count, one thing that I do know is that the number of fans and followers your film has does not alone, in any way, equate to your future success. I’ve had films with almost no social media followers do EXTREMELY well financially and I’ve had films with tons of followers absolutely bomb. Communities need to be curated and nurtured, not “acquired.”  A community that will bring long term rewards is always earned and never bought. And the problem for most traditional releases is that this takes time. The process of building a sustainable community can’t be confined to the weeks that a social media agency has been retained by a distributor  Community is the by-product (the results),  that, after a lot of hard work, comes when your film starts to connect with audiences. It comes from goodwill, benevolence, and the creation of an environment that motivates people to get involved. It’s the rewards of your efforts, not the genesis of it. And it’s developed more offline that it is online.

For me, your community are those people who want your film to succeed as much as you do, and are willing to do anything and everything they can do to help it get there. They are the people who are willing to spend their Saturday afternoon putting up posters for you in their local towns. They are the ones who can’t wait to meet others who share a similar passion for your project. The real value of community is that these are the people who will tell ten others to go see your movie.  And there’s nothing more powerful (and inexpensive) than leveraging the passion of your community.

When people ask me what the “call-to-action” should be for their film, I always have the same answer – “Get your core fans to tell ten others to go and see it.”  And because of this, when I’m asked what the most powerful community building platform is for independent filmmakers, my answer is never Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr.  It’s the personal email lists of the filmmaking team. Nothing is more powerful when it comes to getting people to see a movie.

Data: When someone watches your movie on any of the older established transactional platforms (brick-and-mortar movie theaters, Cable VOD channels, Amazon, iTunes, Netflix, etc) you, as the content creator, are given ZERO access to an incredibly vast array of data that that platform has collected from the sale or rental of your film. Not only do you not have the ability to communicate directly to those who’ve watched your film, you’re not given any information as to who they are, where they live, what they like, etc. Because of this lack of transparency, a growing movement of content creators who are demanding to have direct access to their own customer data has lead to a whole new wave of more open (and not always film centric) dashboard based digital platforms like Kickstarter, VHX, and others. The real threat that the more established players in digital distribution face is not coming from any one of a host of new hot start-ups. Rather, it’s coming from all of them. The threat is not a company per se, it’s a philosophy is one of data portability. Companies like Apple will either become more open with their data, or eventually they will be left behind. What retailers have known for years is that owning the relationship with your customers means having the ability to reduce waste in your marketing. And in reducing waste, you will reduce your costs. And in reducing your costs, you will be increasing your profits. Its as simple as that. And the key to all of this is having access to your own data. The good news for filmmakers is that each month new start-ups are being formed where giving the content owner direct access to customers is a core principle of the platform.

Content Bundling: Filmmakers who will succeed in the new direct-to-fan model will be those who understand and maximize the bundling of digital content and physical goods to raise the average price point of their films when they’re offered direct through their own digital channels. To be successful, the value that is given to fans through your own website needs to be greater than what’s being offered elsewhere. And the best way to do this is to bundle digital content and physical goods so that a higher price point becomes not only justified, but something that fans desire because they’re getting exclusive materials directly from the filmmakers. Today, we’re giving away far too much good content for free as part of our marketing campaigns because we don’t have any other use for it. We’re still conditioned to think that all bonus materials that’s any good should be put on a DVD for your film. But when was the last time you purchased a DVD?  If you’re like me, you haven’t bought a DVD in years. Until companies like VHX and Vimeo began allowing filmmakers to sell direct, there was no commercial use for bonus content other than on a DVD. Today, smart filmmakers are bundling this content with their films when offering them for sale on their website and giving fans more value for their money. Today, nobody can compete on price with Amazon. And a a time where Netflix offers a month of unlimited access for less than the price of a single movie ticket, the only way filmmakers can make any money by going direct to fans is to offer them something that the other platforms can’t. And if done well this can come at a higher price as long as you are giving fans more value at the same time.

Dynamic Pricing:  For me, the most exciting aspect of new direct-to-fan video streaming tools like VHX and Vimeo is not simply that filmmakers can now offer their films directly to their communities through their own websites; it’s that they can control the pricing of their films without having to go through a third-party. Success in retail comes not from establishing a fixed price and then keeping it at that price until declining sales compels you to lower it. It comes from analyzing sales patterns and adjusting pricing to take advantage of opportunities that occur each and every day. Dynamic pricing is both an analytical and creative process that, if done well, can be the differentiator between making money and losing money. Today, “agility” is the key factor which determines success and failure. And because of this, putting the control of pricing into the hands of the content owner is, for me, the true “game changer” when it comes to VHX, Vimeo, and others in this category. Today, most people believe the statement – “Prices never go up, they only go down” But, for those who know how to use these tools, this is simply no longer the case. When you connect dynamic pricing with content bundling not only can prices go up, they can go up and down as often as you like.

$$$: From all of the work that I have done in this area, I’m convinced that signifiant revenue for independent filmmakers will never come from the current platforms that are based on the old models. Rather, to truly have a sustainable business model for independent film, we will need new platforms that were never a part of the old way of doing things.

And one thing is certain, they will be platforms that offer filmmakers a true “360 Equation”.

So to recap…

Community (Curating and nurturing those who are not only willing to pay more, but WANT to pay more… as long as they’re getting more value.

+

Data (Reaching your community directly, without going through a middleman, thus reducing waste)

+

Content Bundling (Offering a wide variety of versions of your product at different price points)

+

Dynamic Pricing (Adjusting pricing “on the fly”)

=

$$$ (Profit, baby!)

(An earlier more stream-of-conscious “draft” version of this article was shared with those on my personal email list. To subscribe, click here)

(photo by dneesespix)

As new digital technologies continue to evolve and disrupt the landscape for independent cinema, I continually get asked by filmmakers for my thoughts on how they should adapt.

My answer lately has been…

“Stop acting like a filmmaker, and start acting like a rock star”

And I don’t mean this figuratively. I mean it …]]>

(photo by dneesespix)

As new digital technologies continue to evolve and disrupt the landscape for independent cinema, I continually get asked by filmmakers for my thoughts on how they should adapt.

My answer lately has been…

“Stop acting like a filmmaker, and start acting like a rock star”

And I don’t mean this figuratively. I mean it quite literally.

Unfortunately there aren’t a ton of good examples and case studies on how the film industry is FULLY leveraging the convergence of social media (which in my mind is nothing more than “community building”) and digital distribution. For me “FULLY” means that the filmmaker, not only the distributor, is making more money from leveraging the new model than they would have if they had gone with the old model. While selling and renting movies on iTunes has been around for quite awhile, it’s only now that we have a truly viable set of diverse choices for how to digitally distribute our movies.

But when you look at the case studies that have indeed proven to be real success stories in this new distribution paradigm (INDIE GAME: THE MOVIE, BONES BRIGADE, and BURN to name just a few) you start to see that all of the filmmakers of these films took a page out of the book that rock stars have been reading for a long, long time.

1. Treat your fans like they are the most important thing in the world to you

2. Build your community of fans yourself and then sell directly to them without a middleman

For most bands, their recorded music (which is usually owned by their record label) is only one piece of a much larger pie of their annual income. And for the most successful bands, music sold through their record label is usually the smallest piece of that pie. The real money isn’t made from selling CDs and downloads. It’s made on the road doing live gigs and selling merchandise directly to fans.

For filmmakers, the idea of treating your film like its your latest album, and then “going on tour” to do a series of live in-person events directly with fans in support of the film is a completely new and foreign concept. Common wisdom has been that live events don’t “scale”. And because of this, it hasn’t been part of the current model for film distribution.

But this didn’t stop Lisanne Pajot and James Swirsky when they turned down down offers for their Sundance hit INDIE GAME: THE MOVIE, packed their bags, hopped into a van, and then took off on a fifteen city in-person US tour completely sponsored and paid for by Adobe. Not only did Lisanne and James act like rock stars, they BECAME rock stars, doing meet-and-greets with their fans each night just as a band would. They instinctively understood what most filmmakers don’t — that the key to their success was not going to come from selling their film to a distributor, but rather it would be achieved by bringing the film directly to the community of fans that they had built and nurtured while making their movie.

For most, the days when a filmmaker could earn a nice living by selling their film, immediately move on to a new project, and then return to the previous project for a couple of press days is, sorry to say, over.  Not only do filmmakers need to adapt to this new reality, so do the distributors. In the future, the real money from theatrical releases of indie films won’t be in traditional box office receipts. It’ll be made by going completely outside the current system. What bands know that filmmakers don’t, is that they can often make more money by taking a larger percentage of a smaller number of events. The key to doing this successfully is that the film itself becomes only one part of the larger attraction. Bands have known forever that what people want when they leave their couch is to be part of a live experience that feels like a truly spontaneous event where each and every night is different. And when that live event over delivers on your expectations, not only do you buy the ticket but you also buy the “t-shirt, cap, and jacket.”

If movie theaters started selling merchandise today, for most films it would be a complete disaster. The merchandise wouldn’t sell, and a lot of money would be lost. But what if that film was a true live event positioned as a  “limited engagement” where the filmmaker and cast present the film in the same way as when a band plays a gig? When you limit your audience, the average ticket price can be much higher and merchandise sales not only do quite well, they often become a significant part of the “take”. It works for most music tours and Broadway plays and, in theory, it can work for films too.

Today we live or die on a model that is completely dependent upon the amount of screens a film plays on. Common wisdom is that the more screens your movie is playing on, the more money you’re making. But for most films, this is a complete falicy in which demand is not meeting supply and costs are exceeding revenue. And because of this, for far too many good movies, the theatrical window has become nothing more than a loss leader.

But it does’t have to be this way.

As bands have learned long ago, the key to making money is to make things feel exclusive and special, and then work to get the “average spend per customer” higher. But today, when someone goes to the movies, the sole beneficiary of a higher “average spend” is the theater owner, as increased revenue can only come from the concession stand. But if that filmmaker “owns” the live events for their film, just as James and Lisanne did with INDIE GAME, and then sell merchandise directly to fans as Tom Putnam and Brenna Sanchez have done with BURN, the money they will make will be considerably more than if they had if they had sold their films to a traditional distributor.  Its not a model that will work for every film and every filmmaker. But for those that it IS right for, the rewards will be well worth the effort.

Today most filmmakers are still thinking that their interaction with the public is “film-by-film.” And because of this, the direct relationship they have with their fans is extremely limited and of very little value. But for those filmmakers who think that building community around their creative work is something that THEY need to be doing themselves 360 days a year, and not something that their distributor should be doing for them, the reward for this hard work and expense will be that as their community grows they can go directly to their fans to make money in a myriad of ways.

So if you’re a filmmaker who wants to be part of the new paradigm, stop trying to act like Quinten Tarantino  and start acting like Dave Matthews.

As this year’s Envision Conference approaches, the IFP is excited to screen Steve Hoover’s Sundance-winning documentary Blood Brothers at the DGA on opening night on April 10th. The film follows Rocky Braat, a former graphic designer who moved to India after meeting a group of HIV/AIDS orphans. Not only are …]]>

As this year’s Envision Conference approaches, the IFP is excited to screen Steve Hoover’s Sundance-winning documentary� Blood Brothers at the DGA on opening night on April 10th. The film follows Rocky Braat, a former graphic designer who moved to India after meeting a group of HIV/AIDS orphans. Not only are the humanitarian aspects of the film compelling, but Hoover’s portrait of his friend shows a compassionate man with a need to give. Check out this in-depth post from Steve Hoover at Filmmaker Magazine, where he discusses the shooting process and Kickstarter campaign to post-production and partnerships.

Read the article here.

Missing Pieces is available 100% free online. It was not pirated illegally, and it’s not something we threw together overnight to give away.

Our team spent five years on it with the help of 600 volunteers and a work load of over 137,000 man-hours. It cost $100,000 and stars Mark Boone …]]>

Missing Pieces is available 100% free online. It was not pirated illegally, and it’s not something we threw together overnight to give away.

Our team spent five years on it with the help of 600 volunteers and a work load of over 137,000 man-hours. It cost $100,000 and stars Mark Boone Jr. of ‘Sons of Anarchy’/Batman Begins and Melora Walters of ‘Big Love’/Magnolia.

Now why would a filmmaker make such a silly decision?

Simple: so you’d watch it.

When we started this journey, our goal was- of course- theatrical. After a year of festival limbo and a shifting market, we set our sights a little lower: DVD. After another year of trying and failing to get a respectable deal, we just hoped to clear our music rights (with money we didn’t have) and we hoped someone would watch the film.

Without money for marketing, we knew no one would take a chance on something they’d never heard about. Since most films get pirated anyway, we thought our best bet to get the film to an audience would be “free” in hopes that it might spread via word of mouth.

We’ve exhausted everything we know to do to promote it, but no one seems to bite. It would take another article to fully outline the things we’ve done over the past couple years to spread the word, but there’s a time to let a project go and know you’ve done your best.

The movie doesn’t have the kind of viral quality it takes to make major waves online or in print, and the plot isn’t easily-explained. However, we’ve found people who discover it one-by-one and watch it all the way through truly love it. It touches their hearts and sticks with them (or so they say), and that’s why we made it.

As an example of another obscurity, Donnie Darko tanked in theaters. However, after years of slowly spreading around, it gradually built a fan base and seeped into “movie consciousness.” If Missing Pieces is ever going find its place, I think it would be that  kind of gradual way. We just don’t have the resources to make it spread quickly or traditionally.

Ideally, people would watch it, share it, and buy the DVD or donate so we can get out of debt. This may not happen as we’re realizing, but we’ll keep telling people about it one by one. So far our audience has been limited to mostly family, friends, and a few new faces.

Hopefully it does become a film that breaks through the clutter, but time will tell.

If nothing else, we just wanted to hobble to the finish line and make it easily available to whomever wanted to find it. There’s nothing worse than fielding that dreaded question, “So- how can I watch it?”

In the lulls since 2010, I’ve written three scripts, and we’re trying to find money to get one of them made. Maybe having a finished feature will be a way to attract actors or investors to show what we can do, and maybe having a budget on a second film would be a way to end the debt from Missing Pieces.

The distribution landscape is pretty bleak for art house and smaller films like ours. However, the economy was in the dumps when we started this project in 2008, and it’s never been easy. We didn’t let that stop us when we started, and we won’t let the way things are stop people from being able to see the film we worked so hard to make.

Hope you’re able to check it out and enjoy.

Happy filmmaking!
Kenton

Website: http://www.FindYourMissingPieces.com
HD Stills: http://bit.ly/MPHDStills

But let’s start with … Making movies is hard. And you’re gonna get rejected. A lot. And getting rejected repeatedly can kill your soul. …]]> In the spirit of SXSW starting this weekend, I’ve put together a list of things you can expect when taking your short film out into the world.

But let’s start with … Making movies is hard. And you’re gonna get rejected. A lot. And getting rejected repeatedly can kill your soul. I remember a student getting rejected by her second festival. She threw up her arms and said, “I quit!” I looked at her and said, “You gotta be kidding me. Really? Cause if you can’t take this … I don’t know, dude.” You have to have solid-steel thick skin. Or at least be able to fake it.

Still from Candler’s HELLION

So let’s turn the table and start with the idea that you’ve made a really great short. It’s awesome and it’s getting into some festivals. What could happen to my little film? What should I expect from my film festival adventure?

The holy grail would be that someone sees your short, falls in love with it, falls in love with you and wants to turn it into a feature film with (of course) a million dollar budget. Holy shit, that’d be rad. It happens. But it’s rare. Very, very rare.

Here are some things that are more likely to happen …

1) New Friends! You’ll make new friends with some amazing filmmakers. Those friendships will last a lifetime. You’ll call on each other over the years to swap scripts, help each other out on set or call up for advice. These relationships are just as valuable as getting that million dollar film deal. No lie.

2) New Collaborators! You’ll find new collaborators. You’ll see other people’s work that excites you and people will see your work and want to work with you. Finding new people to work with as DPs, Editors, Production Designers, actors … is such a reward. With that said, go watch a ton of films at the festival.

3) Exposure! People will see your film. You’ll have an audience, in a theater, seeing something you and a team of bad asses made. And you never know who’s in that audience. It could be an agent, a manager, a financier, a new fan … But I think something that’s pretty important when you’re on the circuit with a short film is to have a feature script ready to go. If someone does come to you with that golden ticket, you better be ready.

4) Awards and Reviews You could win an award. And that award could get you the attention from other festivals or industry folks. And then you can put that festival laurel and that award on your postcards, posters, website. Same with reviews. You can rack up some great press and reviews and use that in your publicity materials. Building a name for yourself through press, reviews and awards, will legitimize you in people’s eyes.

5) Meeting the Programmers It’s great to meet and befriend the programmers. Establishing those relationships can last a lifetime. And when you come back with that feature film, those programmers will be super excited to see your new work. The door opened with that short film.

6) Distribution Distributors will probably contact you. That’s awesome. Do your research into the company. Talk to other filmmakers that are housed at that company and what their experiences have been like. It’s exciting, yes, but do your homework.

Still from BLACK METAL

I’m going to reiterate number one, one last time. Make new film friends. I swear to god, this is the best part of the community we work in.

Short interviews with the heads of some of the most exciting new companies such as Dylan Marchetti (Variance Films) and Josh Braun (Submarine Entertainment) working in independent film & media today. Hear about their work, and the ways they are working to make change for independent media makers. The panel …]]>

Short interviews with the heads of some of the most exciting new companies such as Dylan Marchetti (Variance Films) and Josh Braun (Submarine Entertainment) working in independent film & media today. Hear about their work, and the ways they are working to make change for independent media makers. The panel is moderated by Janet Pierson producer of the South by Southwest (SXSW) Film Conference and Festival.

This discussion was part of IFP’s Independent Film Week.

Benh Zeitlin’s fantastic allegory “Beasts of the Southern Wild” started as a play, was grounded in a short film, cast with non-actors, filmed on the bayou, and was produced by a bunch of friends from college and before. It premiered at Sundance, won the Grand Jury Prize and got picked …]]>

Benh Zeitlin’s fantastic allegory “Beasts of the Southern Wild” started as a play, was grounded in a short film, cast with non-actors, filmed on the bayou, and was produced by a bunch of friends from college and before. It premiered at Sundance, won the Grand Jury Prize and got picked up by Fox Searchlight, then premiered at Cannes and won the coveted Camera d`Or for a director’s first feature.

On January 10, 2013, the film was nominated for four Oscars, in the categories of Best Picture, Best Director (Benh Zeitlin), Lead Actress (Quvenzhané Wallis), and Adapted Screenplay (Lucy Alibar & Benh Zeitlin). Hear from the team behind this year’s hottest independent break out about their inspiration, their collaboration, and creative drive.

I have had the good fortune to be involved in IFP’s Independent Filmmaker Labs for the past several years now and I have seen innumerable benefits to the films and filmmakers who participate.  The Labs provide an opportunity for first-time filmmakers to not only …]]>

Jon Reiss at the 2012 IFP Narrative Lab

I have had the good fortune to be involved in IFP’s Independent Filmmaker Labs for the past several years now and I have seen innumerable benefits to the films and filmmakers who participate.  The Labs provide an opportunity for first-time filmmakers to not only receive feedback on their films from their peers and experienced filmmakers but it is the first lab to prepare filmmakers for the essential work of distribution and marketing.

This year we launched the IFP PMD LAB (Producer of Marketing and Distribution) the first of its kind.  This year, the PMD Lab worked in conjunction with the Filmmaker Labs, with all the participating PMDs attached to a film in the Filmmaker Labs.

Since the end of the year if full of 10 best lists – I thought I would compile the 10 best results of the inaugural year of the PMD Lab.

1.  Defining What A PMD Is. I think this is of critical importance as this nascent crew position develops.   A PMD is not just a social media manager.  To be a PMD a person must be involved in all aspects of a film’s distribution and marketing, including audience identification and engagement, creating a distribution and marketing plan, budgeting that plan, creating marketing elements, creating and managing other assets to help promote the film, etc. All of this in concert with the filmmakers.   � See this post for more.  I think the PMD trainees were amazed and excited about the scope of this position.

2.  Learning how to identify audience.  After understanding the goals of the team, the first assignment for the trainees was to identify the audience for their film.  Many of the films had already started this process in the spring Filmmaker Labs sessions.  But rarely do first-time filmmakers fully understand their audiences in the first go round.  It also takes time for the notion of niche vs. core audience to sink in – and how to view how audiences can expand from a core.

3.  Learning how to engage that audience.    This is a career-long process and can be daunting at first.   It is important again that it is not just about social media – we stress that it is crucial to know how each particular audience learns about films and then to target that source - influencers, social media, organizations, traditional media – whatever works.

4.  Develop marketing tools for the film (after understanding who the audience is).   We have the PMD trainees (and in fact all Lab films) create initial marketing materials most of which are essentials for a press kit: logline,� one line synopsis, short synopsis, key art, website and, if possible and appropriate, trailer and social media sites.

5.  Workshop those marketing tools.   One my favorite parts of the Filmmaker Labs and PMD Labs are the Marketing Labs held right before IFPs Independent Film Week.  Each team presents the marketing plan for the film and it is workshopped with a panel of professionals.  Some heated discussions result.  The process either helps crystallize the beginnings of a plan for the team – or makes them realize they have a ways to go.  Either way I find that they are so much further along than most filmmakers by starting this process in post.

6.  Writing a distribution and marketing plan for their films.  The last assignment for the PMDs was to write a distribution and marketing plan for their films.  I am a broken record on this: every film is different and needs a unique plan.  It is essential that PMDs learn not only how to write these plans – but to understand all of the aspects contained within.  It is hard to teach this in a crash course (which we had in September and December).  But what I found most instructive was:

7.  Evaluating different distribution options.   In the December Distribution Labs, we had the opportunity to see each of the 20 filmmaking teams present their distribution plan, and to have that discussed by incredible experts in emerging distribution models. It became very apparent what types of distribution options are available to filmmakers and how those can be crafted for each individual film.

8. Learning how to budget that plan.   In order to execute a plan you have to figure out how much money you need to execute the plan.   Going through an extensive distribution and marketing budget can be daunting – but it is also important to know what you need to pay for in order to achieve that film’s goals.

9.  Creating a community of PMDs.  The trainees told me that one of the best outcomes of the PMD Lab was the community that they created amongst themselves.  While we had monthly phone sessions and 2 separate Lab meetings, the trainees would contact each other on a regular basis, which has continued even after the Lab’s completion.  They are even supporting other films from the Labs that did not have PMD trainees.   Several of the trainees have been so excited by the concept that they will be participating in the PMD website that we intend to put on the IFP site next year and to determine a way that PMDs around the world can find community (stay tuned!).

10.  Learning how to develop a career as a PMD.  This was a strong interest for the trainees – naturally.  What I stressed is that the PMD is just like any other film position.  You have to start small to build your way up – finding any way to gain experience.  Little by little filmmakers are realizing that they need to budget for this crew position.   One of the goals of the above mentioned site is to provide a centralized place that filmmakers can find PMDs for their projects.

If you think you can be a PMD please feel free to contact me so that I can keep you abreast of these developments.

Jon Reiss is a filmmaker, author and strategist who wrote the book� Think Outside the Box Office and is the Director of the IPF PMD Lab.� Follow� � Like

From the IFP’s recent Industry Connect Event with DCTV and the NYTVF

Around March last year a friend of mine showed me an article about why the video game Angry Birds is so successful. The author Charles L. Mauro CHFP (Certified Human Factors Engineering Professional), was attempting to provide a cognitive scientific report on why the game has been so …]]>

Around March last year a friend of mine showed me an article about why the video game Angry Birds is so successful. The author Charles L. Mauro CHFP (Certified Human Factors Engineering Professional), was attempting to provide a cognitive scientific report on why the game has been so unbelievably successful (now with physical merchandise doing the rounds, and a feature film in the works). These sort of reports remind me of the guy who used to lease us our old studio space in Manhattan who was always trying to think of what he used to call “the next YouTube.” His desire to get rich through some cool new internet startup idea, rather than just sitting down and working hard on playing to his strengths, used to confound us a little. Similarly an analysis of what makes Angry Birds ‘genius’ with the intention of perhaps helping others reapply these findings on a project that could also be as successful, seems fairly futile. I can guarantee you the makers of Angry Birds didn’t apply this ‘science’ when creating the game. They simply wanted to make a fun game and used their intuition to do so. Mauro’s article talks about the ‘mystery’ behind the game as if it was all so calculated. We all know that when you’re deep in the development of a project like this, these things just come about as part and parcel of making it more fun to play. The objective logic that comes with so many levels of artistic ‘criticism’, is so often just an afterthought in the minds of those actually making something. The simple, prevailing fact remains that the brilliance of these things comes purely from the subconscious when making something good. A subconscious that has been trained hard by years of enjoying other art forms in all their many facets. A subconscious that is firing on all cylinders when you’re stuck into development and are becoming one with the creation of the thing.

The most interesting part of Mauro’s article, and in fact the part that lead me to get into an argument with my friend about it, was his ‘How things look’ subheading in which he states the following -

“This leads to a more interesting question: How does visual design impact success in the marketplace? I routinely get this question from clients who are undertaking large redesign or new development projects. Decades after it first surfaced in automobile design, visual design is still the most contentious aspect of designing compelling user experiences. Designers (mostly of the UX stripe) routinely sell clients on the concept that the visual design (graphic style) of a given interface solution is a critical factor in success. This assumption seems to make good intuitive sense. However, the actual working principle is counter-intuitive. In most user experience design solutions, visual design (how things look) is technically a hygiene factor. You get serious negative points if it is missing, but minimal positive lift beyond first impression, if a user interface has great visual design. When we conduct user engagement studies for clients (not the same as usability testing), we routinely see data that strongly supports this theory.”

Needless to say but I found the implications of this statement pretty unsettling and was reminded starkly of Bill Hick’s Advertising or Marketing comic routine (watch it below). Particularly Mauro’s last sentence which almost entirely echoes Hick’s line, “You know what Bill’s doing now, he’s going for the righteous indignation dollar, that’s a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we’ve done research, huge market. He’s doing a good thing.”

The following is a slightly polished version of what I had to say in reply to my friend, regarding Mauro’s points about visual design. It’s relevance to the IFP, filmmakers in general and the making of art of any kind will I hope be evident.

…

Mauro’s argument perhaps stands given the Angry Birds exact context, but largely speaking he’s dealing with a more more profound and complex issue. His point falls flat when you try to apply it to what I’m going to call the ‘Rags to Riches‘ argument. This argument understands that first impressions are certainly of value and that the actual experience of using something is fundamental, but in the end the psychological impact of the visual is the most important, lasting and hard to measure. The ‘rags’ in this case being of course the perceived immediate impact of good visual design, and the ‘riches’ being the powerful long-term, psychological and sociological effects of said design.

I agree that when Mauro is perhaps simply asking, “Why is this game so successful? Look how much money it made – here’s how to potentially make that money too,” then sure, what he’s saying could be of use. However when you consider how depressing people’s neighborhoods, streets, homes, offices, cubicles and online user experiences can be on a daily basis due to skimping on visual design for the sake of ‘what works’, and you then see this later turning into depression, anger and ill-will towards others, you realize we’re talking about something much, much bigger. Something which arguably could affect financial prospects more subconsciously and seriously, albeit at a slower pace.

Mauro continues later in the article to say -

“Even more important than good or bad visual design is appropriate visual design.”

I think this is the key factor here, and that people confuse this issue way too often. Angry Birds has a very appropriate, high standard of design. Without it it simply would not appeal to the millions who’ve paid for it. Guys think it’s pretty cool, girls think it’s cute, it makes kids laugh, it spaces out adults – all of this is absolutely requisite and in this regard Mauro’s article absolutely nails many of the elements that make it so enjoyable to use.

In the same fashion if you were going to design cheap housing in some backwater town, would you use materials that are going to stain, droop, crack and crumble after a few years? You know full well no one is going to revisit this place for repairs and that those living there can’t afford to repair it either. Why make anything that will rot both physically and psychologically everything around it? If there isn’t enough money to make it well, it should not be made at all. To quote the architect Howard Roark from Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead -

“Rules? Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the site, the material determine the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it’s made by one central idea, and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive, like a man. Its integrity is to follow its own truth, its one single theme, and to serve its own single purpose. A man doesn’t borrow pieces of his body. A building doesn’t borrow hunks of its soul. Its maker gives it the soul and every wall, window, and stairway to express it.”

It’s about long-term psychology as much as it is about immediate success, and without discussing these decisions you can’t knock one thing and say it’s simply not as important as the other. As Mauro notes you can’t accurately put monetary value on visual changes, but in the same way that you do things to help the environment (that you also can’t see directly dying as a result of your actions), it’s wrong to imply as Mauro does that it’s simply a ‘hygiene factor.’ That hygiene factor is what I’m calling the long-term psychology of a design, and what Howard Roark calls a building’s soul.

So, to correct Mauro somewhat, I think it would be smarter to state that, “Even more important than good or bad visual design is appropriate visual design, and what is appropriate design is multi-faceted and entirely respective of context.”

Whether you like it or not, your entire world is affected by the look and feel of the things you engage with for long periods each day. It’s a designer’s job to try to overcome employers who make it less attractive and ‘more functional’ simply because they can pay you less to do this job and make more money. These people are idiots who don’t have a long-view of their general, daily, psycho-visual imbalances. I say this of course with the proviso that greater function doesn’t always come with a guaranteed decrease in visual quality – it just seems to so often be the case. The simple fact remains that cutting corners makes people suffer and if you can run away with the money and ignore the consequences, you’re a selfish charlatan. You are a part of the problem and not the solution.

I can appreciate that Mauro is largely appealing to those who want to make a buck, however this is bad advice because it assumes that the only value of good design is related to products and their markets. To reiterate once and for all, it’s our responsibility as human beings to remember there’s a lot of people on the planet who have no control over the look of the world around them and who are ruled by those who want to ‘make a buck’. Those of us that must suffer living beneath billboards towering above, promising soulless dreams, the garishly coloured junk food wrappers sitting in the gutter, the television commercials selling drugs for pains that don’t exist, the dying buildings built with cheap materials slumping under the weight of their own short lives, the angry faces and the lack of respect for anything. These people aren’t idiots. They know better than anyone that the look of the world around them massively affects their subconscious state of mind. They know it when they walk out of their rotting front door, glance at the grey sky, the paint peeling from the walls of their neighbour’s house across the street, scrape the ice from their car’s windshield with the splintering lid of a margarine tub, curse as the car won’t start and their foot goes through the rusted bottom of it as they lash out in anger. They know it when some of them later get drunk and walk around smashing windows, keying car doors, spray-painting church walls, and beating people up – all scenes I’ve witnessed in my years growing up in England in the suburbs of Cambridge, 3 years at University in Manchester and later living in Bedford-Stuyvesant in New York City. It’s a level of rage that I can support and forgive when places like that are your reality. Try getting mugged at 8:30am on your way to work, as I was in 2008, and being told by the cops that there’s no point in reporting it.

Some of these people hate the world around them. They know what the end-game is better than the thoughtless assholes who make the products, create the ads for them and leave those ads gathering mould on some rusted old bus-stop sign, 23 stops out of town in some relentless nightmare of a burnt out suburb. The sorts of places that otherwise only filmmakers dare frequent in order to make their gritty melodramas. We have got to remember that every small gesture toward making things simply functional, that disregards how much ‘greyer’ you are making the user’s day, is a very valid negative point.

There’s a lyric from the Pulp song Glory Days that comes to mind -

“Oh we were brought up on the Space-Race, now they expect you to clean toilets.”

…

Of course these arguments mean nothing until you can tie them back to money. This is the hard cold fact one must accept if you’re going to make any changes to the world these days. There are no gods left to use as any real threat to your actions, and the perceived ties between actual art and big money are mostly hanging by a string. Mauro wrote his article for people who want to make money. I am writing my article for free, with no apparent financial gain for anyone. So let me throw my marketing hat in the ring for a second here and point out how a long-term view of these things can and will actually make you money, as well as making the world a better place.

Think about how things will look retrospectively if you actually put in the time to make something visually beautiful as well as functionally sound. We only ever look back at the things that looked and performed fantastically, and cherish those particular things with heaps of nostalgia and warm hearts. We never look back at the ugly, embarrassing things that made lots of money in the same way. This might seem irrelevant, but listen up – these days heaps of money is made by harnessing that retro-active nostalgia and reaping what you can from that. More than ever we are focusing on remakes, reboots, retro-fashion, older sounding records, aging our photographs, and 80s-looking video game pixelated aesthetics.

There’s no denying that there is money in making things built to last, making things a canonical representation of the visual style of the era you’re living in and making people feel respected by giving them the finest. People want to love their past, they want to look back at previous decades with a smile, they want to relive that in every way they can and they’ll buy it.

It all comes full circle ultimately.

Everything from the look of a video game to the look of a bus-stop is relevant to people’s daily experience of the world. If you give people one moment to think you don’t care about them and that you’re not offering them in some capacity the best of what life has to offer, then you’re responsible for the slow, aching decline of civilization, the inevitable death of your company and, to paraphrase Fight Club, Brad Pitt pissing in your food at the formal business dinner where your boss raised a glass to you and offered you that huge promotion.

In the end, whatever your craft, the moment you’re thinking about the money, skimping on the quality of the design and focusing on your immediate financial gains, the worse you are making life for everyone else, and eventually yourself. So the next time you’re arguing with your designer, give this some thought. Could be they’re just a chump doing lazy work, but it could be that they’re fighting for a larger cause, one they subscribed to at a younger age when they made the connection between beauty and a better life. Rags to riches.

Sometimes I feel like a traveling salesman, going from festival to festival selling my finished films, and from market to market pitching my new projects.  I recently participated in my ninth project market on the “filmmaker” side, and I’ve done four of them on …]]>

Film Independent's Fast Track project market

Sometimes I feel like a traveling salesman, going from festival to festival selling my finished films, and from market to market pitching my new projects.  I recently participated in my ninth project market on the “filmmaker” side, and I’ve done four of them on the “industry” side, so I figured I’d write about my experiences with project markets to try to demystify them a bit.

What is a project market, you ask?  It’s basically a matchmaking program between filmmakers (writers, directors, producers) and industry professionals, with the goal of getting the filmmakers’ projects closer to production.  They usually run over 2-3 days, and are often held in conjunction with a film festival.

Examples of U.S. project markets include: Tribeca All-Access (held during the Tribeca Film Festival), Film Independent’s Fast Track (held during the Los Angeles Film Festival), and IFP’s Project Forum (which, by the way, is currently accepting submissions).

Examples of non-U.S. project markets include: Cinemart (held during the Rotterdam Film Festival), Berlinale Co-Production Market (held during the Berlin Film Festival), Hong Kong-Asia Film Financing Forum (held during the Hong Kong International Film Festival), and OMDC Toronto International Financing Forum (held during the Toronto Film Festival).

If you are a filmmaker with few industry connections, project markets are a great way to start building your network of useful contacts.  A project market essentially “validates” you and your project, and prompts the industry to start tracking you.  These markets serve as curators of new talent, which is critical because industry professionals are so inundated with submissions that they need curators to help focus their attention.

However, filmmakers who get accepted to project markets should be careful to manage their expectations. If you think your film will get greenlit within the months following a project market, think again!  Chances are, as ever, slim—I think this is because project markets tend to favor first- and second-time filmmakers and less commercial projects, and because it takes time to build a relationship and mutual trust with an industry person.

But don’t dismay: there are, of course, a handful of films that I know found a chunk of their funding at a project market. And at the very least, you’ll get a chance to meet a lot of industry folks in a short period of time, and to start developing relationships that may later bear fruit.  The value of a project market has more to do with building relationships and a network for yourself than getting a green light for your project. Hopefully, you will have other projects in your back pocket so that if you meet someone who doesn’t like your drama, maybe they’ll like your comedy instead.

So…who the hell are these “industry professionals” anyway? Below is a breakdown of the industry types a filmmaker might meet at a project market:

Production Companies & Producers

• 1. Production Companies Backed by Investors: These companies have private equity, the holy grail for independent films. Some also have first-look or overhead deals with studios.
• 2. Production Companies Connected to Actors: Some have studio deals and connections to financiers. Sometimes, the particular actor must be attached, so if you don’t want to abide by that condition, look elsewhere.
• 3. Production Companies Connected to Directors: Some have studio deals and connections to financiers. Sometimes, the particular director must be attached, so if you don’t want to abide by that condition, look elsewhere.
• 4. Production Companies and Producers With No Backing: The vast majority of “producers” fall under this category. While these folks have no money, they do often have connections to financiers, talent agents, distributors, etc., and can help develop your script, do a budget & schedule, attach cast & crew, and shop your film. Every film needs a producer, so if you don’t have one, find one.
• 5. Development Companies Backed by Investors: These companies focus on script development only. They usually acquire material (books, articles, etc.) and seek writers to do adaptations.

Agencies and Management Companies

• 6. Financing Agents: The major Hollywood agencies (UTA, WME, CAA, ICM, Gersh) and Cinetic have financing divisions that specialize in packaging and finding financing. These agencies work on commission when shopping a project to their network of financiers, and reserve the right to sell the finished film domestically. It’s rare for an agency to take on a low-budget project unless the director or actors attached are repped by that particular agency.
• 7. Domestic Sales Agent: Also called producer’s reps, these companies or individuals work on commission when trying to sell your finished film to a distributor at a festival, market, or directly. Most of them who aren’t one of the aforementioned financing agents don’t have the deep network of financiers necessary to greenlight your film (though some do). As such, these agents are most likely just tracking your project in anticipation of representing it when it’s done.
• 8. Foreign Sales Agent: These guys are responsible for selling the foreign rights for your project. Some of them can offer financing in the form of minimum guarantees (MGs) at the script or financing/casting stage, but this usually requires a big star or big director attachment, or other elements that have specific commercial appeal for certain territories. Even if you can’t get that rare MG, these agents can provide foreign sales estimates that you can show to your potential financiers.
• 9. Talent and Lit Management Companies: These companies can assist with cast attachments, and possibly represent you as a writer or director, thereby opening up their network of connections to you.

Studios and Distributors

• 10. Studios: A major Hollywood studio has the power to fully acquire and finance your feature, but chances are, they won’t do that if you’re a filmmaker early in your career. More likely (though still pretty unlikely) is a negative pickup deal in which a studio promises to pay you an acquisition fee upon your delivery of the film to them. You would still have to cashflow this deal through a bank or other financier. Note that you should expect to give up a degree of creative control in a studio deal, especially in a full acquisition. A studio executive might attend a project market to track you as a director or writer, or your project as a potential future acquisition after you’ve finished the film.
• 11. Mid-Sized and Smaller Distributors: Companies like IFC and Magnolia don’t typically finance production, but in very rare cases, they may put up a portion of the budget in exchange for certain distribution rights. But these companies are still useful to get to know since they’re among the most likely to buy your finished films.
• 12. Other Distributors: There are a whole slew of smaller specialty distributors and newfangled platforms (cable VOD, online streaming sites, etc.) that are helpful to know.
• 13. Distribution Service Companies & Consultants: Distribution service companies will release your film for a fee, and consultants and PMDs (producers of marketing & distribution) will advise you or manage your distribution, also for a fee. These guys won’t help get your film greenlit, and are probably just tracking potential future clients.

Debt Financiers

• 14. Banks and Debt Financiers: These guys can cashflow your negative pickup deal, foreign MG deal, tax credit, or similar collateral.  It’s rare for very low-budget films to use debt financing because a portion of the financing fees (bank, attorney, completion bond, etc.) are flat, so they’ll suck up a bigger percentage of a smaller budget.

Non-Profit & Government

• 15. Grantmaking Organizations: Generally, grants represent a small fraction of a film’s budget, but they’re still great if you can get ‘em!  Most focus on special interests (women, social issue, etc.).
• 16. Government Film Commissions: Whenever possible, “soft money” should be a part of every film’s financing plan as it can mitigate financiers’ risk and give you some “free” money for your budget.  In the U.S., various states have tax credits (NY, NC, LA, CT, AK, to name a few), and in Canada and elsewhere in the world, there may be loans and grants in addition to tax credits. Sadly, soft money is disappearing due to the state of the world economy.
• 17. Project Markets & Labs: Project market organizers sometimes troll other project markets for submissions.  It’s good to do multiple project markets to widen your industry network, but note that like festivals, project markets don’t like to take projects that have already “premiered” elsewhere, though there are of course exceptions. These guys primarily want to meet and track up-and-coming filmmakers, and see what other projects they might have that may be more suited to their own project markets. Also sort of related to project markets are screenwriting, directing and producing labs, which can be helpful in developing your craft and connecting you to more potential collaborators.
• 18. Film Festival Programmers: They don’t have the power to greenlight your film, but it’s good to develop relationships with programmers since so many indie films are launched and acquired at festivals. These guys want to meet new filmmakers and track future films.

Services

• 19. Post-Production Companies: Some post-production companies grant post services, or do in-kind equity deals.  Note, however, that post equity deals will value services at full rack rates.
• 20. Production Service Companies: It’s helpful to get to know the production service companies that have a lot of experience shooting in the region where your film will shoot, particularly if you’re not familiar with shooting there.
• 21. Completion Bond Companies: These companies oversee the production of a film and provide assurance to financiers that a film will be completed on time and on budget (and they’ll cover any overages). But it often doesn’t make sense to bond a small-budget film because these companies require a minimum service fee and 10% contingency.
• 22. Attorneys: Attorneys attend these things to track new potential clients. This is a good time to start shopping around for an attorney so you’ll have one when you’re ready to make deals. Note that some of them also represent investors.

* * * * * * * *

I think that about covers it!  Notice anything missing?  I do: high-net-worth individuals, who are the primary financiers of very low-budget films in the U.S.  You’ll have to find those folks elsewhere.

Some other suggestions

- Write a project summary that includes: logline, synopsis, director’s statement, bios of all cast/crew attached

- Bring a look book, or at least some visual references

- Don’t hand people a full paper script

- If your project has both a director and producer, you should both attend because I find that pitching as a team is more effective

- Be conversational and keep any formal presentations short and sweet

- Follow up over email, and include links & attachments presented at the meeting, even if you’ve already given them physical material

One last thing: before you start pitching to the industry person sitting across the table (whether at a project market or not), figure out exactly which of the above categories they fall into, and adjust your pitch accordingly.  Happy networking!