It is really great to see a festival get their industry panel videos online so quickly after the event. So few events do this in a timely manner and some never get around to editing and uploading their recordings. Toronto International Film Festival just wrapped and already their Youtube channel is populated with some of the great discussions had at this year’s industry conference. I have embedded this video discussion on day and date film releases that you can watch in its entirety (51 mins), but I will summarize the information if you are in a hurry. I’m going to add in a little commentary of my own, so if you want to pure version, watch the video.
What is the biggest challenge for the day and date distribution model?
Answers on this varied as 2 representatives were from the US where day and date has be tried a number of times by companies such as Roadside Attractions, TWC Radius, and Magnolia (as high profile examples), but is actually illegal in France where the other 2 participants are from. For distributors, the challenge is knowing which films to give a day and date release and which to open as a platform release to retain the 90 day theatrical window. Most theater chains in the US will not allow a day and date release film to play in their cinemas so this kind of release still remains a challenge rather than the norm.
Internationally, not only are there language barriers to sort out (sometimes over 20 different languages), but it is challenging to release in all territories in a timely manner that will reduce piracy. Since the bigger films are known about all over the world (thanks internet), the public expects to get access quickly and not have films released over 6 months to a year time period.
In much of Europe, there is a strong lobby to maintain a long theatrical window. Over time, things will change to reflect both the consumer viewing habits and the amount of revenue that will be lost if producers are not allowed to explore different release strategies. “Welcome to New York” is an example of taking a film straight from its Cannes premiere, where it received maximum publicity exposure, and going straight to VOD in France, completely bypassing the theatrical window and the strict no day and date policy. The move was meant to send a message to exhibitors that if they maintain their position, they will lose support of the producers.
What kinds of films make sense for a day and date release?
“Good name cast, good genre and/or films with an already established following” are films that makes sense for day and date and also for any VOD release. It is the name brand or strong genre recognition that sells in a crowded marketplace where there is now a glut of content being produced and released every week. “A comedy or thriller with A list cast” is the perfect candidate for day and date or VOD success. Also important is compelling key art and description. When consumers search VOD menus, they are drawn to the artwork and then to the description in making their buying decision.
Social media plays a role when the director or the cast have large followings that can be leveraged at the time of release (hear that social media phobes?). Films that don’t have A list cast, but do have cast with large online followings can find success in digital release.
Will major studios ever use day and date as their main release strategy?
Warner Bros. released Veronica Mars this way last Spring. They used 3rd party bookers (rather than in-house) and a 4 wall distribution method for the theatrical release. They specifically partnered with AMC Theatres chain along with a few other smaller theaters and grossed over $3mil domestically. The connection to an already existing fanbase really worked. Working with exhibitors and making it financially worth their while (4 wall fees) was a way for them to experiment much like the smaller independent distributors. The Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions partnership allows Lionsgate to distance itself from the day and date model because it leaves the theater bookings to Roadside and other 3rd parties. Lionsgate’s good relationship to exhibitors stays protected while it picks up ancillary distribution rights for bigger indie releases.
As far as a studio releasing Star Wars or some other high profile title as a day and date, probably won’t happen for a long time. There is real money to be had in VOD, maybe even tens of millions on a release. But the aspirations of a studio release exceed what day and date can provide at the moment.
What is the pricing model for day and date? Do you think premium pricing will work?
There is price sensitivity even though the sales pitch for premium pricing is multiple viewers can watch at home for one flat fee. Mixed results have happened where a film was priced at $30 for VOD 6 weeks after its theatrical debut.
No matter what pricing is put in place, exhibitors are still pushing back on the idea of day and date.
Are filmmakers starting to accept day and date as a release strategy?
Filmmakers still want their films to go out theatrically, not for financial reasons, but because they believe it gives them more recognition; more press coverage and also because it feels more legitimate for them. They aren’t wrong. Many broad publications will not cover a film that goes straight to VOD and much of the public still views a film that is in theaters as more “legitimate” than one that goes straight to home video.
But Abel Ferrara was happy to make “Welcome to New York” available VOD only and be the first film to do that in France. In fact, Jean-Luc Godard expressed his jealously during Cannes this year. He wanted to do the same with his film. With Ferrara’s previous film, 4:44 Last Day on Earth released in 2011, it did only 20,000 admissions in France. This film did over 200,000 sales and the share split in each sale was close to 4 Euro . The number of sales went up, but so did the amount of revenue because traditional theatrical splits are not very good. It is very important to note this! While number of sales on VOD may not look good on paper, the revenue splits are often better.
But the “Welcome to New York” release did get publicity out of Cannes, so a high profile festival debut can often get the big publicity needed to propel a film to success on immediate VOD release (for smaller profile examples see Sound City and Indie Game which both launched at Sundance and capitalized on that publicity). This publicity strategy is highly dependent on playing a festival that is likely to attract a lot of media attention. The “Welcome to New York” example was powered by a name auteur director (Ferrara), a name French star (Gerard Depardieu) plus co star Jacqueline Bisset, a massive festival (Cannes) and the fact that they were a “first” for direct to VOD in France. None of these publicity angles are easily replicated for a typical indie film.
IFC Films has a core business commitment to day and date releases and treats those films to the same full publicity push that they would give to a more traditionally released film. They get cast on the late night talk shows. They do press screenings and interview junkets. A list cast is bookable and that really helps. They handle day and date films like ”real” release. Bear in mind, this means they aren’t sparing much marketing expense! But instead of only reaching 10 cities with a theatrical, they are reaching millions of homes all for the same marketing expense.
Where do you stand on whether VOD numbers get reported? Will there be widespread acceptance of releasing numbers publicly?
VOD number do get reported. They are reported to producers, to directors, to investors. There is transparency in that relationship. The complication in making them public lies in a constantly changing marketplace and in confidentiality clauses of contracts (ie, not everyone gets the same deal and the industry doesn’t want that widely known).
Also there is a lack of context around those numbers so they aren’t easy to interpret. With box office, you can see a gross revenue number, see how many theaters the film played in, see the per screen average and know roughly the average ticket price paid. But VOD is a whole different animal. There is a myriad of platforms, all have their own pricing strategies, their own promotional positioning at play (exclusives, pre theatrical sales, “now in theaters” sections). VOD encompasses cable, download to own, paid streaming/rental, subscription license fees, ad supported streaming. So “the public” would be confused about what constitutes a “good” number. (Caution: my own commentary ahead)
This is reported revenue as marketing ploy. What industry is scared of is opening weekend VOD numbers won’t tell the whole story because VOD is still a series of windows. Revenue builds up over time. But so does a theatrical platform release. Opening weekend in 4 cities is not telling the whole picture of a theatrical release, but those numbers are reported and then added to as the runs are widened. Anyone can see that on Boxoffice Mojo. All of the years letting theatrical grosses be a publicity angle for journalist reporting on the “success” and “value” of a film is coming back to bite because audiences are using this information to make purchasing decisions. A low number in VOD sales is likely to be reported as a flop and drive audiences elsewhere. But this also happens in theatrical release where a film doesn’t open to big numbers, but still chugs along in the long term to actually make a profit. Not the flop it was reported to be. Most that the time, that profit is never a story because the film is no longer new. I’m just not buying this argument. It is the American mania of having to have BIG numbers to show the film has value that is driving this reluctance to report. (end of commentary).
The point was brought up that reporting these numbers is valuable to gain acceptance of releasing this way, especially to show agents and talent (and press) that a day and date release is legitimate. The French participant said it isn’t about having big numbers in Europe, but about convincing film bodies and filmmakers that there are many ways viewers are choosing to watch films and whatever way they choose that involves paying to watch should be embraced. France is the only market where VOD numbers went down last year because of the stringent rules about the length of the theatrical window. One could take this to mean more people chose to go the the theater….or one could take this to mean that there was a lot of piracy going on so sales numbers declined.
You know what VOD numbers do get covered in some press? Pirated films and the estimated number of downloads they receive. Why would it not be worth reporting how many people have paid to digitally view a film?
Will Netflix ever be a bigger part of the day and date model?
There doesn’t seem to be a vested interest on Netflix’s part to make that happen and they don’t seem bothered by the fact that releases on Netflix appear a few months after theatrical and transactional windows. What they want is real awareness of the film by their subscribers. This either comes from the promotion of a theatrical release or it comes from the name recognition of the actors or director. Like all businesses, they have evolved over time. Originally, they were very keen to pick up and support small independent films. But now they have collected years worth of data from their subscribers and are allowing their algorithms and data collection to guide their licensing strategy. It makes complete business sense to rely on what your customers actually watch and license work accordingly. Subscribers want films they have heard of from people they have heard of.
Will exhibitors be brought into revenue sharing for day and date releases?
It is in process now. 4 walling fees have softened the blow for exhibitors so that is why some will allow a day and date to go forward. They also receive 100% of the concession stand revenue. But that method is almost always a loss for the distributor who has to front the cost of 4 walling and all of the promotional costs of the film, even though they get 100 % of the ticket revenue. Some exhibitors may also discount the cost of the 4 wall fee in exchange for a percentage of the VOD revenue.
In closing, all agreed that there will be major changes to release models all over the world within 5 years. For the full discussion, access the video below.
This is a very important distinction and I have been trying to find a better way of articulating to filmmakers why the story of a film is NOT the same thing as its marketability. I FINALLY found this explanation that I think might get through. I found this from Michael D. Sellars who in turn learned it from his mentor, Lenny Shapiro of Avco Embassy Pictures. The idea isn’t new, but ideas that spread win so I am helping to spread. From now on, I will include this information in my own consultations and workshops because it is so clear and succinct. Filmmakers and film schools put A LOT of emphasis on playability, and not nearly enough on marketability.
The ability of a film to attract an audience. This is one of the main things an industry executive is looking for when you pitch your film. Filmmakers all think this means their story. That’s NOT what execs are looking for. The story is your idea and it does have some merit, but what turns in their mind is “How can I sell this to an audience to get them to come to the theater on opening weekend or buy it on VOD/DVD?” It isn’t the story that will do this. That comes later.
Most movies derive their marketability from some combination of stars, director, underlying literary property (famous book, comic book,etc). At the indie level, festival acclaim comes into play, and reviews count, a MySpace [let's say word of mouth] buzz matters. But in analyzing the film from this aspect — the entire point is to answer the question, “Can the film attract moviegoers into the theater?”
This means that if you are making a low budget drama, with no notable names attached to it including the director and the producer, that is an original script not based on a best selling book adaptation, and it doesn’t get selected for major festivals and therefore isn’t going to have many critical reviews…this is going to be a problem. How are you going to get anyone to pay attention to it? What will you hook the audience with BEFORE they actually sit down to see the film and know the story? These are questions that need answers, ideally in the script stage. If you are trying to make one of these films and you don’t have marketability at the beginning (best selling source material, notable names), you MUST get it for the premiere. That’s pretty risky don’t you think? Most acquisitions execs would think so and the strongest ones would decline.
If you are planning to self finance your distribution, you should think about this too. What’s the marketing strategy for a no budget, no name drama, with no major festival accolades and no favorable critical reviews? Ummm….
This takes place once the audience has made the decision to sit down and watch the film. If it is an executive or a festival programmer, you probably hooked them with something to make them take time out of their schedule to do this. The something could be notable names or it could be a favor or somehow piqued their interest. This is a very small group of people to reach. If it is an audience, it means that your marketing strategy worked with respect to reaching and enticing them.
What is their experience once they sit down and watch the movie. How well does the movie “play”? Will it generate favorable word of mouth? Will it catch the fancy of reviewers?
To get that festival slot you desperately need for your no name, no budget drama to be marketable, it all comes down to playability. And if you don’t secure that and you hoped that great word of mouth will just spread, the movie had better “play” for someone.
For indies, the way it “plays” can be subjective. If your documentary about environmental protection attracts people actively involved in the environmental movement, it can play in their world much better than it would outside of that world. In fact, a film like this also has marketability because there is a core audience to target with it. Genre films also fall into this situation. They are less name dependent, but they had better play to that audience.
But if your film is intended to reach a mass audience, a diverse audience, or cross over from niche to mass and you can somehow attract a crowd to watch it (say you threw some serious coin into advertising, publicity and booking theaters), if it doesn’t deliver on their expectations, you have a playability issue and more marketing isn’t going to fix that.
Here’s a little more from Sellars regarding how studios deal with marketability.
Studios are often confronted with a movie which they know is “marketable” — they know that it will attract a great first weekend audience. But they also may know that the reviewers will clobber the film, and filmgoers will be disappointed. Even so — such a film can be financially successful if the “marketability” is good and the marketing campaign is carefully designed and executed… A great marketing campaign — a strong opening weekend — damn the dropoff and get on to the DVD — it can still work.
By contrast, a good film that delivers good “playabilit,y” but doesn’t have marketable elements is a problem. How do you get the warm bodies in theater seats to begin with? This is the true challenge to most good indie films.
So you need both aspects, marketability and playability. With indie films, one can’t succeed without the other. Marketability you can start creating in the development stage. Playability has to be achieved in the production and post production stage. For the film to be successful, you must have both.
I’ve just completed a series with my colleagues over on The Film Collaborative blog dedicated to helping you prepare for distribution of your film. The series was inspired by the many questions we’ve answered over the years in consultations with our members and with independent filmmakers at industry events like Sheffield DocFest, Independent Film Week and SXSW.
Distribution is probably one of the most misunderstood processes in filmmaking. Plenty of schools prepare students for the intricacies of making the film, but leave off the part about connecting that work to an audience. It is a shame because creation is only one part of successful art. The other part is sharing it with people.
In Part 1, we talk about knowing the market for your work. Obviously, distribution falls into the business end of filmmaking and even though artists would like to think that whatever they create will automatically resonate in the market, it isn’t a bad idea to check beforehand.
Part 2 covers the role film festivals play in generating awareness for films, but also in generating revenue. Did you know festival revenue is one of the biggest sources of income for many of the films handled by The Film Collaborative? It’s true! But, the film needs to meet certain criteria in order to see this income stream. Read the post to find out what the criteria is.
Part 3 combines several topics. First, do you know the difference between a distributor and an aggregator? How about a platform and an application? Do you know the release sequence used in independent films? Does that matter any more? What about your chances for foreign distribution? We covered it all in this post.
Part 4 dives into deliverables. This addendum to most distribution contracts often comes as a nasty financial shock to producers. What will a sales agent or a distributor ask for? Isn’t digital distribution more affordable because there aren’t so many delivery items? We talk about what a typical digital distributor will need in order to put your film out on digital platforms.
Part 5 wraps up the series by talking about the financial realities of independent filmmaking. For the most part, it is about lots of little revenue streams (we’re talking hundreds of dollars from tens of outlets instead of hundreds of thousands from only a few). Joe Swanberg comments that artistic freedom comes from knowing the business side of your work. Creating with confidence is a whole lot better than creating with ignorance and subsequent anxiety.
I will be giving the keynote speech at the upcoming RoughCut New Zealand event on September 4, 2014. Preceding my speech, I will spend the day in consultations with local film producers about how to set a marketing strategy and reach the audience for their films. This is especially crucial if you plan to crowdfund and/or self distribute your film.
If you would like to attend either of these events, please see the Tropfest NZ site. I am so excited about my first trip to New Zealand!
While I am in the neighborhood, I am seeking further speaking or consultation invitations. Please contact me
[info at shericandler.com] to arrange the opportunity.
I have just returned from Europe where I participated in the Meetmarket at Sheffield DocFest and the Binger Filmlab’s Digital Filmmaking Week. It was great to get back out and meet filmmakers and industry people face to face instead of only online (yes, I did just say that!). I also got to sneak in a few plugs for the new book.
Since most of you could not attend these events, I have posted my Binger presentation on Slideshare and below. Notes are included as well. I hope you find it helpful.
I sent out some advance copies of the book last week in order to get a little feedback on the content. This comment came back to me and I thought it would be useful to share with everyone. Irish filmmaker Trish McAdam had this to say:
Selling Your Film reads like a kind of ”rough guide” to film distribution. You’ve got to bring your own individual energy and innovation to the journey, but it is really helpful to have reliable, current, on the ground info on the lay of the land before you plan just how adventurous a route you want to take.I don’t know if the opportunities that are available now, because of new digital media, will change the industry in the long run. Perhaps the new order will eventually become as restrictive as the old, but right now there seems to be a chance to break new ground and this book describes some of the inspiring ways people have succeeded.
The Emperor’s New Clothes was my favourite childhood story and there are certainly some naked truths in Selling Your Film.
Just finished my first whizz through your Papadopoulos & Sons case study. What a great story, very real, very fresh take on the weird “norms” in the European industry. What is even sadder is that that attitude starts at the script stage. I have been told many times my ideas are too ambitious, too commercial or, at the same time, not commercial enough. Even if that was meant as an insult to my talent, there still was no offer on the table to buy the idea.
European film so wants to be Hollywood, but won’t take a gamble. Tries to play safe except when the cronyism kicks in and then money goes into the strangest of projects. The competition in European film is still commercially and culturally tribal.
The American way of doing things seems so tough, Hollywood or Indie, so much about the survival of the few, super fit. But there is something very interesting always about an American eye on things, the eye on the dream and how to get there, and also something attractive about the European mess, the wrangling over meaning and process. Something very attractive also about the possibility of global humanism outweighing all that.I love that last paragraph [in the Papadopoulos and Sons case study section]….
Surely, this is the pioneering spirit of the film business that we all want to believe in. Dare to dream. That’s what so many of the heroes do in the films we make. They dare to dream, dare to change things, dare to be heroes. And so if we take the lead of the characters we put up there on the screen, we should do the same in real life. Not just in our stories.
I am emotional reading it, the way one is when you read something you have always known, but just couldn’t put the words to. What I always come away from your words with is a sense of empowerment and wish to have you onside someday on a project.
My thanks to Trish for sharing her comments with me and allowing me to share them here.
As of TODAY the entire ebook is available for FREE via iBooks, Amazon and PDF copies on a global basis. Any filmmaker anywhere can have their own copy and become more knowledgeable about the current state of independent film distribution.
I would be happy to hear your feedback and questions.
Volume 2 in the Selling Your Film series
Selling Your Film Outside the U.S. is the second volume in the “Selling Your Film” case study book series. While our first book, Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul, focused on U.S releases and case studies, this volume takes a deep dive into digital distribution (and distribution generally) in Europe and provides several case studies of films released there.
The series began in 2011 as an attempt to encourage transparency in an industry that has always been quite reluctant to do so. Three years later, we are proud to have led the charge towards this goal, and we are encouraged that others are embarking on other projects that attempt to do the same.
Within the pages of this book, you will find marketing and crowdsourcing strategies, real distribution budgets, community building activities and detailed ancillary and digital distribution revenues for independently produced films.
By stripping away the mythology surrounding independent film distribution, we aim to present a more realistic picture regarding how filmmakers can earn revenue—and when they cannot—from a variety of release strategies. While there is no one model that will work for a particular film, the books in this series highlight a multitude of new techniques filmmakers are using to directly connect their films with audiences, effectively reach them through the power of the global Internet, and build a sustainable fan base to last throughout a career.
One of the chapters in this book employs the phrase “Carpe Diem.” In the context of digital distribution, this has dual meaning. First, in a harsh world that can tire of one thing and move onto the next in the blink of an eye, we encourage filmmakers to jump into action and formulate a viable and expedient distribution strategy as their films move from the festival circuit onto a larger arena. Second, the digital distribution space is a constantly changing one, where platforms come and go at an astonishing rate. Therefore, it is important that filmmakers not only empower themselves by learning how to navigate the landscape of digital distribution, but by keeping this knowledge up to date as well.
To that aim, we offer Selling Your Film Outside the U.S.—containing chapters by The Film Collaborative co-executive directors Orly Ravid and Jeffrey Winter; marketing strategist and social media expert Sheri Candler; documentary filmmaker and independent film consultant Jon Reiss; and Wendy Bernfeld, managing director of the European content curation and licensing company Rights Stuff BV—as the starting point for any filmmaker (whether they are U.S.-based or not) who wishes to explore distributing their film in Europe.
Today’s guest post was written by Gabriel Diani in response to my post asking filmmakers if Facebook is still worth their time? Gabe thinks it is for his work, but for reasons that pertain specifically to his audience demographic, which may not be the case for everyone. Ultimately, this is a decision that everyone who uses Facebook for business reasons must confront and evaluate.
Let’s be clear: I have no love for Facebook.
The changes to their sharing algorithm since they took the company public nearly torpedoed the Kickstarter campaign for my movie “Diani & Devine Meet the Apocalypse.” Much has been written about it since then but in case you don’t know, here are the basics:
-Facebook now only shows a small portion of your posts to your friends unless you pay to boost your post;
-Facebook only shows a small portion of your page posts to the people who have liked it unless you pay to promote your post;
-Even if you pay to promote or boost your post and more of your friends and followers see your posts, they are not paying to have their posts boosted so any LIKES and SHARES can’t go viral as easily as they used to.
There’s certainly more Facebook is guilty of, but these were the main changes responsible for Facebook dropping from our number one referrer for our previous successful Kickstarter campaigns to number three behind our personal email list and Kickstarter itself.
So, yeah, I’m not the biggest Facebook fan and was delighted by Eat24.com’s fantastic open Facebook break-up letter to the world. Sadly, though, we can’t afford to break up with them ourselves yet. Why, you may ask, dear reader? Well, I’ll tell you in an easily digestible numbered list.
1) WE HAVE AN OLDER DEMOGRAPHIC. A lot of the audience we’ve built up over the years tend to be more in the 30 years old and up range…sometimes way up. These aren’t the people constantly seeking out the next social media platform. Some of them are on Twitter, fewer on Vine, and they have no idea what Tumblr, Instagram, or Snapchat are. We have no way of migrating these people to another platform…at least not until the Facebook backlash gets strong enough to affect this group.
2) WE’RE STILL GETTING INTERACTION. It’s not like it used to be and we can’t reach a lot of our audience, but we still get interaction from them that we’re not getting elsewhere. I posted our first behind the scenes production still the other day on my personal page and got 43 LIKES and 2 SHARES. Pics on our DDMTA Facebook page and from cast and crew timelines are pulling in 16-40 LIKES as well. Is that enough for us to tell the world about our movie? Absolutely not. But in the world of micro-budget producing it’s something we can’t afford to lose.
3) FACEBOOK WAS STILL NUMBER 3 IN OUR KICKSTARTER CAMPAIGN. Despite it’s nefarious fall from grace, Facebook still was a bigger referrer than Tumblr, Reddit, Google+ or any of the growing platforms. This is partly because we haven’t spent years building up our audience base on these platforms. We created a video for our campaign with Janet Varney from the hit anime show “The Legend of Korra” that was reblogged and shared on Reddit and Tumblr thousands of times, but it didn’t translate into very many pledges.
4) WE DON’T HAVE EAT24.COM’S AUDIENCE. Eat24.com got a lot of great press off their leaving Facebook and probably got a lot of followers on Twitter and whatever other platforms they’re on, but they also undoubtedly lost some followers/fans who aren’t on those other platforms. They were starting with a much larger audience than we have so they can afford to lose some.
It would be lovely to be able to follow Eat24.com’s lead and break up with Facebook in protest, but unfortunately we’re stuck with it for the moment. We will definitely be focusing our audience building efforts on other platforms in the hopes of being able to cut the cord some day…and who knows? Maybe Facebook will start treating us like it did when we first started going out.
What about you? Have you seen a decline in your Facebook reach and interactions or is your page still holding steady or growing? Let me know in the comments along with any advice you want to share.