TFC Blog

> tfc blog

by David Averbach, Liz Manashil, and Orly Ravid

Next week, The Film Collaborative is holding a free virtual distribution conference, Distribution Days, which will offer concrete takeaways on the state of indie distribution and how filmmakers can navigate it. Attendees will hear from exhibitors, distributors, consultants, and filmmakers, some with case studies, as they describe and reflect on the landscape.

This conference hopes to help filmmakers develop critical thinking skills around distribution by looking at what is and what is not viable within a traditional distribution framework. It will also offer some alternative approaches. Willful blindness or a doomsday mindset are equally unproductive.

So, we are offering this pre-conference primer to set the tone, take stock of what myths are out there, and talk about what thought leaders in this space are coming up with as ways to deal with the current landscape.

Here we go!

Remember the days when creators and distributors were lying back in their easy chairs, proclaiming their satisfaction with how independent cinema has been evaluated by the marketplace? Yeah, we don’t either…and we’ve been in the industry (in the U.S.) for more than two decades. Nevertheless, there is a pervading sense that the state of independent film has never been worse—and that we’ve been going downhill from this mythic “better place” ever since Sundance was founded in 1978.

Why do we insist on bemoaning a Paradise Lost when the truth is that being a filmmaker has never been a paradise? Filmmakers have always been confronted with predatory distributors, dense and confusing contract language, onerous term lengths, noncollaborative partners, lack of transparency, and anemic support, if any (just to name a few). For an industry that prides itself on creating and shaping stories that speak to diverse audiences, we should be better at articulating truer narratives about our field.

It doesn’t help that, at Sundance this past year, all one could talk about was how streamers were “less interested in independent film than a few years ago, preferring [instead] to fund movie production internally or lean on movies that they’ve licensed” and how Sundance itself was “financially struggling, presenting fewer films than in previous years and using fewer venues.” (https://www.thewrap.com/sundance-indie-film-struggles-working-business-model) Still others like Megan Gilbride and Rebecca Green in their Dear Producer blog have put forth ideas how Sundance should be reinvented completely.

But we all know that independent film isn’t just about Sundance. We have heard a lot of discussion recently about the need to reshape the narratives we tell ourselves regarding the state of the independent film industry.

Distribution Advocates, which is also doing great work chasing the myths vs. the realities of the field, also believes that we must all question “some of our deepest-held beliefs about how independent films get made and released, and who profits from them.”

In their podcast episode about Exhibition, economist Matt Stoller remarked how “weird” it is that even with all the technology we possess connect audiences, we’re still so “atomized” that all that rises to the top is whatever appears in the algorithm Netflix chooses for us in the first few lines of key art when we log in (and we will note that even the version of the key art you see is itself based on an algorithm).

But is it really all that strange? One of the main reasons that myths exist is that someone is profiting from perpetuating them. The same with networks and platforms and algorithms. And the more layers of middlemen and gatekeepers there are, the harder it is for us to see the forest for the trees. Keeping us in our algorithmically determined silos numbs us into not minding (actually preferring) that we are watching things—or bingeing things—from the safety and comfort of our living rooms. The ability to discover on our own content that aligns with our true interests or consuming content in a communal space has disappeared the same way that the act of handwriting has…we used to be able to do it but haven’t done it in so long that it feels unnatural and too time-consuming to deal with.

Brian Newman / Sub-Genre Media acknowledges that the problems remain real, but that what everyone is calling crisis levels seems to him merely a return to norms that were in place before the bubble burst. No one, he says, is coming to rescue “independent film”—certainly not the streaming platforms, which merely used it as necessary to build a consumer base.

Many have posited myriad ideas about how to bypass the gatekeepers. Newman echoed what TFC has been recently discussion internally: that instead of many competing ideas, we need them to be merged into one bigger idea/solution. Like, for example, an overarching solution layer run by a nonprofit on top of each public exhibition avenue that will aggregate data and help filmmakers connect audiences to their content. A similar idea was also discussed at the last meeting of the Filmmaker Distribution Collective in the context of getting audiences into theaters.

By exclaiming that “No one is coming to the rescue,” Brian really means that we are all in this together, and that it’s going to take a village.

We agree, but a finer point needs to be made.

Every choice we make moving forward—whether you are a filmmaker, distributor, theater owner, or festival programmer, what have you—could possibly be distilled into either a decision for the independent filmmaking public good…or for one’s own professional interest. Saying that a non-profit should come in and offer a solution layer to aggregate data is all well and good until it threatens to put out of business someone whose livelihood is based on acquiring and trafficking in that data. How refreshing was it to be reminded at Getting Real by Mads K. Mikkelsen of CPH:DOX that his festival has no World Premiere requirements? It reminds us of the horrible posturing and gatekeeping film festivals do in the name of remaining relevant and innovative. For us to truly grow out of the predicament we are in, some of us are going to have to voluntarily release some of the controls to which we are so tightly clutching.

Keri Putnam & Barbara Twist have an excellent presentation on the progress of a dataset they are putting together of who is watching documentaries from 2017 – 2022. They provide some other data that was very sobering:

Film festivals: comparing 2019 numbers to 2023 – there was a 40% drop in attendance;
Theatrical: most docs are not released in theaters and attendance is down even for those that are released.

But they also note that there is really great work being done in the non-theatrical space— community centers, museums, libraries – that is not tracked by data. TFC’s Distribution Days offers two sessions on event theatrical and impact distribution, so we’ll be able to see a tiny bit of that data during the conference.

We also know that the educational market is still healthy, and that so many have remarked of the importance of getting young people interested in film…so we have three sessions where we hear from the Acquisitions Directors of 11 different educational distributors.

We also have a panel from folks in the EU who will provide advice on the landscape and how best to exploit films internationally and carve our rights and territories per partner. And we’ll speak to all-rights distributors about what kinds of films they see doing well, what they are doing to support filmmakers—and what their value proposition is in this marketplace.

We have a great panel on accessibility, and two others that relate to festivals and legal agreements.

Starting off with a keynote from noted distribution consultant and impact strategist Mia Bruno, the 2-day conference aims to summarize the state of the industry while providing thought provoking conversations to inspire disruption, facilitate effective collaboration, and to aid broken hearts.

Regardless of whether current days are better or worse than the heydays of Sundance and the independent film of yesteryear, Distribution Days will identify the current obstacles of the independent film distribution landscape, and what we can hold on to—as a commonality—to evolve the landscape together in the future.

If you look a little deeper, you will see that, despite all the challenges, filmmakers have and can still achieve “success” when they understand the terrain, (sometimes) work with multiple partners with a bifurcated strategy, protect themselves contractually, and maintain and grow their own personal audience.

We hope you will join us. And for those of you that cannot make all of the sessions we are offering live on May 2 & 3, you’ll be able to catch up on what you missed via The Film Collaborative website after the conference is over.

We look forward to seeing you next week! And if you have not registered yet, you can do so for free at this link.

David Averbach April 25th, 2024

Posted In: case studies, Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, Documentaries, education, Film Festivals, International Sales, Legal, Marketing, Theatrical

Anyone keeping up with VOD distribution has read that the SVOD streamers are licensing and funding fewer independent films, placing instead more focus on series and productions. While Transactional VOD (TVOD) and Subscription VOD (SVOD) revenues have declined (after being a boon), Ad-supported VOD (AVOD) revenues have come in as the next boon wave. In fact, some of the SVOD players, such as Netflix and Disney+, are adding AVOD tiers to their services.

As we covered in the initial blog about AVOD, it’s been lucrative for certain kinds of content and especially for distributors with libraries of the right kind of content. For example, see Indie Rights’ answers to the questions below and note that for some films (usually with some commercial or strong niche elements and, rarely, docs, as well) can generate high 5-figure and sometimes low 6-figure revenue via AVOD.

What is your overall observation regarding AVOD at this time (2022) with respect to independent film?

I believe that AVOD is an extremely attractive revenue source and opportunity for independent film. We have watched virtually every major player add AVOD to their channels/platforms including Netflix. The advertisers from traditional broadcast will follow the eyeballs and the eyeballs are leaving traditional broadcast and cable and moving to AVOD. Even our fairly new YouTube AVOD channel is doing great and is now our third largest revenue source for our filmmakers. In July, streaming audiences surpassed broadcast audiences in size for the first time and this trend will continue.

What kinds of independent films do you see doing well?

We have successes and failures in all genres. The most successful are films where the filmmaker has thoroughly embraced our concept of “Post, Post,” i.e., actively engaging with their audience using social media currency.

What does that look like in terms of revenues? What kind of films do not do especially well via AVOD?

Straight dramas without a strong niche subtext. Docs without a strong niche audience, i.e. don’t do a doc about your grandfather or friend/relative that survived cancer unless there is a huge reason to do so besides your personal feelings or you are willing to put it on a YouTube channel and give it away.

Please share any marketing/publicity observations/tips including what Indie Rights does and what its filmmakers/licensors do.

We provide our filmmakers with a fifty page marketing bible that lays out the best social media platforms to have a presence on and very specific strategies to use, for example rotating promotions mentioning only a specific channel, so that channel will re-post to a much larger audience, using short video clips from the movie with links as opposed to just continuing to post your trailer over and over, making sure posters are “click-bait”, that trailers are fast moving and that Amazon, IMDb and Rotten Tomato reviews are maximized as all buyers now check these. We also provide our filmmakers with a private group where we can support each other and that we can continually provide them with new resources and industry news. Every filmmaker/production company needs a YouTube Channel because that is the brand and you can build an audience for your entire body of work. Put clips from your move their, interviews with your cast and crew, behind the scenes clips and/or bloopers and always put a link to where people can watch your film first up in the Description. Most people ignore the fact that there are 2.6 billion YouTube active users and that you are most discoverable there. Also, you can get the best demographics there if you are unsure who your audience is.

As always, feel free to share anything else you want to regarding AVOD (including if it’s a comparison to SVOD and TVOD/EST).

We are finding that very few independent films are doing much TVOD these days unless they have a huge waiting audience. SVOD can do OK if you have a very specific niche to market to.

While we endeavored to get more feedback from other established VOD distributors, we need a little more time and will circle back in a part 3 of this blog in early 2023. In the meantime, it’s interesting to note that FAST channels are all the rage and TFC gets approached along with traditional distributors to supply content to emerging FAST channels (typically very niche-specific as FAST channels are meant to be, in part, a solution to that punishment of choice viewers have when facing all the supply via their Smart TVs, computers, and phones). But how successful those FAST channels are and will be is a topic for 2023, since it’s too soon to tell.

In the meantime, please see below for our colleague and friendly VOD guru Wendy Bernfeld’s update about AVOD & FAST outside the United States.

Is FAST getting FASTER in Europe?

by Wendy Bernfeld, Rights Stuff

Backdrop

Earlier in 2022, TFC published Part 1 of what was intended to be a two-part series on AVOD and FAST channels in the U.S. and the licensing opportunities for indie films, whether indirectly via representatives (aggregators, sales agents, other) or directly (limited but occasionally possible). We also addressed impact and angles of marketing, packaging, audience engagement and revenues.

Fast-forward to the end of 2022, and AVOD—and particularly FAST—has exponentially exploded in the U.S. There’s currently a vast landscape with more than 1,400 channels across 22 networks, including via Pluto TV, Xumo, Tubi, Roku, Samsung TV Plus, and Amazon’s Freevee (formerly IMDbTV), to name a few examples. Some of these bigger services (and other AVODS) have begun to cross over to UK and portions of Europe. But in the U.S., we are seeing some starting to drop channels and/or content to focus on more tailored/curated services. Other trends include moving non-exclusive deals to exclusive ones and expanding from merely licensing older content to acquiring higher profile titles, and in some cases even Originals.

Europe

Europe has generally lagged behind the U.S. in terms of AVOD/FAST, with the UK growing quickly but still 2-3 years behind, and rest of Europe trailing behind that, particularly in the non-English language regions. This pattern is not so unusual when one considers that new service launches and business models (including SVOD services, which are the prior window) often begin and grow in U.S. first, before getting rolled out to the UK and other English-speaking regions and then other EU regions sometime later.

Various challenges unique to international have also affected both U.S. services crossing over to the EU (such as Pluto, Roku, Xumo, Samsung TV Plus) as well as new homegrown EU services (like Rakuten, wedotv, etc). These challenges and distinctions include:

The EU market is more diversified and fragmented in regard to tech, cultural tastes, and cultural requirements (including EU quotas favoring content from EU origin over U.S.).
Platforms must deal with a patchwork of complex rights issues, generally and particularly regarding AVOD/FAST in Europe. These include issues arising from public and private funders, broadcasters, prior windows (SVOD, Pay TV, etc.), and distribution rights gaps (e.g., local distributors handling only some regions for titles but with rights gaps in others).
Add to this the need for costly localization (for example, dubs and subtitles) and in FAST channels, a need for a significant and regularly refreshed volume of programming. Overall, this requires a more tailored content rights acquisition for these types of 24/7 services, for each market and its unique content tastes.
Also, audiences in the EU have very strong offerings of free ad-supported content available (film, tv, docs) via broadcast/free tv (unlike the U.S.). So, in Europe, it’s more of a case for platforms of trying to convince audiences to switch over from their plentiful free-to-air TV to FAST services, or to discover and use them as a complement to their existing TV and SVOD packages.
- Almost 70% of EU households watch ad-supported content free in one form/source or another.
- There’s also a strong paytv, telecom, cable environment in the EU (cheaper packages relatively to the U.S.) and SmartTVs and OTT device penetrations have increased exponentially, but not in all regions of Europe.
- Until recently, the majority of successful TV apps were mainly SVOD or AVOD services in Europe, other than a few more mainstream extensions, such as AVODs for Free TV or Pay/SVOD channels, or, for example, JOYN in Germany (jointly owned by ProSiebenSat.1 and Discovery). [Frankly, they are not a real large buyer for U.S. niche indies/docs.]

2023 EU Opportunities in FAST: Affordable streaming alternative, especially during economic downturns

Since COVID and the explosion of FASTs in the U.S. market, the EU has begun to catch up quickly, driven by:

the continued rise of devices—connected Television/Smart TVs/OTTs that are rolling out. By now 2/3 of EU households have access
the increased demand to get other sources of curated, “lean-back” content programming for free. This is perhaps partly due to an SVOD overload, with too many subscriptions and streaming options (subscription fatigue) and difficulties finding what to watch, where—it’s all too much, a virtual paradox of choice
commercial breaks tend to be shorter in FASTS (5-8 min/hr instead of double that for linear broadcasts) and the ads can be more palatable (new formats, more personalized, targeted)

Content Licensing Opportunities

Although the uptake in EU AVOD/FASTs presents an opportunity for rightsholders, admittedly most will come from mainstream and big brand film/series suppliers, as well as volume aggregators (as discussed in Part 1 of TFC’s AVOD series). The same pattern carries over to Europe.

But there are still some select opportunities for indies, which pop up on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the film and possible matches to the service, including theme, international recognition/acclaim, and other factors:

some FAST services are seeking deliberately lesser-exposed quality indie or local content for audiences (and what’s older to one viewer may be new to another)
and, in turn, those FAST services can help indies at least find new audiences abroad, since the channel-flicking nature of FAST helps with discoverability.
- FAST channels and AVOD can help bring a second life to older films, but also various services are increasingly focused on newer content offerings, particularly in niches or themes that fit their channel(s)

Who’s Out There in AVOD/FAST in Europe

For clarity’s sake, I’m not addressing here the separate phenomena of AVOD ‘tiers,’ such as SVODs like Netflix, HBO Max, NBC/Universal’s Peacock, and Disney+, which are premium-priced subscriptions platforms that now also offer a lower priced ‘tier’ (still a subscription, but cheaper because they are supported by ads, and with less features and content —in other words, a subset of the premium service).

Let’s not confuse them with pureplay AVOD or FAST platforms who are buying content specifically for a service supported by ads, free to consumers.

The main FASTS of course stem (as discussed in Part 1) from studio-backed or other mainstream U.S. services, and/or from device manufacturers—PlutoTV, Roku, (North America, UK, Mexico), Samsung TV Plus, Xumo (via LG), as well as certain EU homegrown services such as Rakuten (detailed further below). Most offer a mix of on-demand (AVOD) and linear FAST, and some have live programming as well.
Tubi is not yet in Europe. Ironically Fox’s TUBI (in North America, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand) has not yet been able to launch in EU/UK, in part due to GDPR privacy legislation in EU. The very model that makes it successful in personalization/ad revenue generation is a barrier to its ability to crossover to EU.
There are also FASTs set up by large EU/international rightsholders (Banijay, Fremantle, A&E, ITVx, BBC, All3Media, Corus,). These suppliers already have rights to a volume of titles and can create multiple subchannels of content, whether under their own brand, under thematic categories, or around single titles popularity (e.g., in series).
- These types often naturally begin with and emphasize their own content. But they eventually do add content from third parties (including indies, selectively, where a good match) to supplement and enhance the channels.
- Beyond their U.S. launches, most of the above already have FASTs in the UK.
Some FASTs are styled as niche thematic channels, such as Blue Ant’s HauntTV (horror), Tribeca’s UK FAST channel, or FilmRise who, among scores of other channels, has 3 free movie channels tailored per market via LG internationally, beyond its offerings in U.S., as well as FilmRise British (in UK, Eire, Nordics, via LG), and FilmRise SciFi (Italy). Other regions will follow in the future.
A&E (but not yet FAST in the EU); Curiosity Stream (the SVOD’s) FAST channel CuriosityNow in U.S. (but not yet in Europe).
Not relevant for TFC readers, but many are “single program title” FASTs—like a Baywatch or Australian MasterChef or Midsomer Murders type of channel.

The SmartTV (CTV)-run channels are a mix of all the above.

Samsung already offers close to 100 free channels through Samsung TV Plus.
- Focused on high brand names, known partners, producers, and distributors, they see AVOD and FAST not just for library titles sitting on a shelf, but as a higher profile bigger window/destination.
  - For example, in Germany they acquired the top new Das Boot series in 8K.
- They have O & O (owned and operated) dedicated channels of their own in 5 markets (Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, UK, Spain) but also the ‘single title’ bingeable branded channels (e.g., Baywatch) and curated entertainment hubs (e.g., comedy, entertainment, reality, lifestyle).
Xumo had earlier also crossed over to EU and also offers, via LG smart TVs, a FAST TV service with more than 190 channels available in France, UK , Germany, and Italy. Some include natural history, drama, or foreign language.
Paramount’s Pluto TV (part of the ViacomCBS Inc., which is now Paramount Global), already a leader in the U.S. has been expanding aggressively through Europe. It’s just had its 10-year anniversary, apparently, with 70M overall monthly active users (MAU), over $1B in revenue last year, and by now has spread to 25 regions (including beyond US: UK, GAS [Germany Austria Switzerland], Spain, Italy, France, and, via its Viaplay partnership, the Nordics, and in Canada, via Corus, which launched in December 2022).
- They differentiate themselves from other types of FASTS as they are “pureplay” FAST (linear), not a free tv companion/AVOD ‘add on’ like others in the UK (Freevee, ITV, MY5). They already have 150 channels in the UK.
- In the UK, they focus on the opportunity arising from the 3M viewers who have zero linear connection (no free tv) and also an additional 10M who technically have a connection to Cable TV, but who don’t really ‘use’ it, so for them, FAST is the key opportunity to give those viewers a “linear-like” free experience, via CTV.
- In France, they have 100 channels, some focused on film and nonfiction.
- In Nordics, they already partnered with Viaplay SVOD, replacing the former free AVOD Viafree, and this is a model they want to continue in other regions.

Other AVODs but not FAST include:

Amazon Freevee, formerly IMDb.tv – which just launched in the UK and Germany
NBCU’s Peacock (part of Sky/Comcast group) launched in UK, GAS, and Italy as part of Sky partnership (subscription and ads angles, but not FAST channels) and some of its content will also follow the path of the new Comcast SVOD SkyShowtime SVOD which rolls out to 20+ EU regions that are not UK, Germany, Italy (so as to not compete with SKY PayTV subscription, not FAST channels).

Homegrown FAST Services in the EU

The largest, Rakuten TV, for example, offers both TVOD, SVOD, AVOD, and FAST, with 12M viewers across the continent, 95% of them on connected television. Their emphasis is now mostly on AVOD/FAST.
AVOD: 10,000+ titles (films, docs, series) from the U.S. and the EU/local indies, as well as Rakuten Stories (Originals and Exclusives). Movies here, for example, on the UK side.
FAST: 90+ free linear channels from global networks, top EU broadcasters and media groups, and the platform’s own thematic channels with curated content (some movies and docs from indies, too).
Currently in 43 EU regions including in Spain, Portugal, UK/Ireland, France, GAS, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Benelux, Croatia, Portugal,, reaching more than 110M households via SmartTVs/Apps.
Some examples of channels of interest potentially to our readers include:
- In France WildSide Tv (an offshoot of Wildbunch sales agent style of films/docs, i.e. arthouse/festival) as well as Universcine (indie cinema and fest titles sourced worldwide). Both those FASTS also have SVOD counterparts that preceded the addition of the FAST, so windowing is important.
- Rakuten’s Zylo Emotion’L is a film channel aimed at women with a mix of romance, comedies, and thrillers, while Zylo’s Ciné Nanar Channel, is a new FAST channel dedicated to a mixture of nostalgic movies that focus on action, disaster, and creature movies in the fight and sci-fi/ fantasy realm.
- In Italy they have also added shorts, natural history, nature themed channels

Other EU Players

Beyond mainstreamer JOYN (JV ProSieben and Discovery, with limited opportunities for U.S. indies), there are other local regional smaller AVOD/FAST sites, such rlaxx.tv in Germany (indie movies, series, doc channels, among other genres and niches).

WEDOTV: (UK/Germany) For indie movie producers/sellers, there’s a stronger appetite in niche content services such as WEDOTV (the late-2022 Rebrand of earlier AVODS WatchFree and Watch4Free) in UK/Germany (both AVOD and FAST). Italy will be added in 2023.
- Wedotv (which includes thematic niches (we do movies, we do docs, etc.) began as AVOD and it remains the mainstay of their service offering (90%), with FAST being used more as a promotional or discovery complementary offering.
- Wedotv is mainly for movies, also tv, and a new documentary channel, as well as more other recent genres.
- Their main focus is movies for AVOD, from all over the world, usually with some cast/distinguishing sales features/festival acclaim, socials. They “don’t need” Oscar winners, but candidate films should be capable of international region traction in terms of cast, theme or acclaim, if not readily recognizable.
- They are increasingly interested in other genres like factual, factual entertainment, and sports.
- They market the service simply as “free to air,” whether FAST or AVOD. Consumers don’t care, although they’d need both rights, respectively.
- After their earlier days of playlists, they now have a more “curated thoughtful approach to programming,” with categories and themes—for example, action night, thriller day, horror night, etc.

MOJItv: (Benelux) FAST channel (carried on Samsung TV Plus and Rakuten—kids content only
The Guardian FAST channel: (UK, EU) Launched in spring 2022 on Rakuten TV, it is the “first time The Guardian’s documentaries and videos will appear on a scheduled, linear channel as part of The Guardian’s global digital network.” (source).
Reach: the 43 Rakuten TV regions above (via Samsung, LG, and also via Samsung’s own FAST TV service Samsung TV Plus in select countries.)
SoReal (all3media’s lifestyle TV FAST)
ITVX: (UK) Just launched in December 2022. SVOD with an AVOD tier and also 20 FAST channels in the UK, which they expect will make FAST more mainstream and help normalize the UK audience’s behavior, which was more traditional in terms of TV viewing and SVOD.
- However, most of the content on ITVX at launch is, predictably, from their own stable – thematic single program channels (such as Inspector Morse, Vera, ITV shows), also themes from their stable: crime drama, classic vintage films, sitcoms, reality formats, true crime), but…
- On the plus side there will also be some third-party content acquisition from indies selectively over time to round out the offering.
LittleDotStudios: many AVOD channels including 7 FAST channels, many themes would be of interest for TFC viewers and they do buy from indies.
- FASTs: Real Stories, Timeline, Wonder, Real Crime, Real Wild, Real Life, and Don’t Tell the Bride
- For the other channels/YouTube and other AVOD activations, see these links (here and here) for multiple narrower themes you can match your titles with.
- They are actively buying from indies both direct and via sales agents, aggregators, core regions such as the UK, the U.S., other English regions, and then some EU regions, for example, Germany.
- Paying either rev share, MG plus rev share, or flat fees, film dependent – that’s the good news. The bad news is that lately they’re buying in packages of 50 or so titles, and phasing out the ‘’one-offs’’ from indies…but there can be some exceptions.
TF1’s STREAM: (France) This service is part of myTF1, via Samsung: it offers multiple (40+) FAST/AVOD offering channels, aimed at the French market; some are IP (single title specific, regarding French titles on the broadcaster), while others more genre-led programming (such as archive movies, international dramas – mainly big names like Mad Men, French dramas, thriller, romance, manga/anime, for example).

Pragmatics

Sourcing Deal possibilities: How to reach the platforms?

The EU opportunity is growing in 2023 as opposed to the very overcrowded market in U.S. That’s the good news. But to manage expectations, the bulk of content sourcing by these larger FAST services is first from the content libraries of the studios, distributors, aggregators (as in the Part 1 AVOD blog).

There can be some exceptions for stellar one-offs, but it is easier for the platforms to deal with packages, volume and frequent “refresh.” The smaller niche services (like movies, horror, or LGBTQ+ specialized ones) you can approach directly with more ease.

If dealing with sales agents, and/or aggregators, some are more active/savvy in this part of the digital sector (beyond the big global platforms) than others, such as Syndicado (Canada), OD MEDIA (Netherlands-based but in 10 regions and dealing with 200 platforms in TVOD, SVOD and now strong in AVOD/FASTS including FASTS of their own), First Hand Films (GAS) (sales agent for docs, social, gender issues, etc. but they are also active in digital and AVOD/FAST), and Abacus Media (UK), all of whom do activity in AVOD/FAST as well.

Age of Film/Windowing

Films 3-8 years old, as I outlined in my previous TFC blog article on SVODs, were usually possible candidates for acquisition on a non-exclusive basis in the SVOD window for the SVOD platforms beyond the Big Globals. Films older than this fell nicely in the AVOD/FAST window.
However, those lines are rapidly blurring, and now newer titles (for example, those that are 5 years old or even more current) can be picked up by an AVOD/FAST and occasionally exclusivity can be required. Therefore, it is critical to watch the windowing to avoid shooting yourself in the foot. As mentioned in part 1 of the AVOD blog, sometimes U.S. AVOD revenues can exceed those of SVOD, but that’s not yet the status in UK/EU, which is a few years behind, so this needs to be balanced carefully.

Slanting the pitch

It is also essential to show [as mentioned in part 1 of the AVOD blog] some connection of your U.S. film to the EU platforms, for example, in theme, cast, IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes ratings, metrics (socials, audience engagement, clever marketing, or packaging/bundling) with other titles in similar category or theme or other hooks (like name cast in your film or elsewhere on the platforms).
Generally, the overseas EU platforms need to prioritize their own EU originated producers and suppliers (also for content quotas that are express or implied, depending on the region), so it is a lot harder these days to sell a one-off from the U.S. over something originating from the EU.
- That said, U.S. indie content can still have appeal, and one can find other “hooks” to pitch, for example, when we helped producers from the U.S. sell music docs to the EU, we also indicated the massive fan bases of the rock/punk groups in the very regions of Europe where we were selling the film and added film festival or press reviews from those regions so the pitch was more tailored.
- What might be old to someone in the U.S. could be new to someone else in the EU, which is a double-edged sword–either an undiscovered gem that helps the platform differentiate itself, or a unsold film that was unsold for a reason. Handy to address this in the pitch, if relevant.
- Overall, each platform needs different types of content so find your match: niche subjects with traction indeed include paranormal, Sci-Fi, Black, LGBTQ+, action, adventure, horror, fast-paced docs (e.g., music/lifestyle, but also educational). The key is to match….

Basically, if you are able to go direct, or, if indirect, with the support of reps, then it is helpful to do as much as possible to “help do the buyer’s job for them”—and indicate where the film fits in their offerings, or suggest other titles they already have on their site that are comparable, etc.)

Deals

AVOD/FAST revenues: most platforms expect non-exclusive and via rev share, and only some titles are doing well on this basis, if standalone—it’s still early days in the EU.

Some platforms do pay a flat-fee (e.g., 5-figures per title, depending on regions). It helps you have some certainty but then again, they don’t have to share the viewership data/calculations, so to speak. Some of the various larger players are moving in this direction.

In cases of mid-sized or smaller platforms, one can choose, in some cases, not to take a flat fee, but a smaller minimum guarantee (M.G.) plus rev share, or take a larger ongoing rev share for upside (e.g., some platforms offer the indie film the choice). Its platform- and film-specific FAST is too new to have a locked-in model, so at least there is some room for negotiation with the mid-sized and theme/niche platforms overseas, where deals are not negotiable at all (again this depends on the platform and film).

Discovery helps increase ad revenues

Outside of U.S., as with Part 1 of the AVOD blog, it is even more important when a sale is made (whether by you or your reps) on a AVOD rev share basis, to take steps to actively ensure you help audiences “find your film” on the AVODs/FASTs, so that it doesn’t sit unnoticed in a huge online store (and thus unmonetized).

The bottom line is that it’s important to be familiar with each platform and know how one might best match and search for your film. Pay attention to keywords, genres, formats, and topics actually used on the AVOD and FAST sites, not just the ones you had in metadata from earlier windows.

Wendy would like to note that much of the factual content from the above article was sourced and summarized from the following sources (articles and podcasts):

Articles

WTF are Fast channels (and should advertisers care)? (The Drum, November 25, 2022)

Why Haven’t FAST Services Taken Off in Europe? (Videoweek, April 26, 2021)

La FAST TV accélère en Europe (JDN, March 11, 2022)

FAST channels: The New Grail of Connected TV (Onemip, July 25, 2022)

Ad-Supported Content Will Benefit from Streaming Subscription Overload (SpotX, Sept. 2, 2020)

Samsung TV Plus launched new channels across Europe (Prensario, Oct. 18, 2022)

Samsung TV Plus: AVOD pioneer seeks content partners in Cannes (Onemip, Oct. 14, 2022)

Rakuten TV expands FAST offering in Europe with 21 new channels (Digital TV Europe, Nov. 18, 2021)

The State of European FAST (Variety, Dec. 23, 2022)

Free, Ad-Supported Television Is Catching On FAST: Boosters Hail It As Second Coming Of Cable, But Just How Big Is Its Upside? (Deadline, Dec. 14, 2022)

The Meteoric Rise of Free Streaming Channels: A Special Report (Variety, Dec. 1, 2022)

Podcasts

Samsung on the FAST and AVOD environment | Inside Content Podcast (3Vision, May 4, 2022)

wedotv on the growth of FAST, innovating distribution strategies and harnessing opportunity | Inside Content(3Vision, Dec. 15, 2022)

The Best of FAST with All3Media, Paramount UK and Samsung | Inside Content (3Vision, Nov. 9, 2022)

Orly Ravid December 31st, 2022

Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms

image credit: Sajid Nawaz Khan (cropped)

by David Averbach and Orly Ravid

One of the joys of working at The Film Collaborative is our extended filmmaker family. Some of the filmmakers we work with we have known for decades, back to when they made their first films. Inevitably, after seven-, ten-, or twelve-year terms, many of these filmmakers are getting their rights back from the distributors with whom they originally entered distribution deals.

They often ask us, “What is possible for my film now? What can I do to give it a second life?”

(We should state that the vast majority of these filmmakers do not have obviously commercial projects that could simply be offered to a different large streaming service like Netflix or Hulu. They are the type of films that TFC handles: solid films with good or at least decent festival pedigrees and proper distribution at the time of their initial release.)

Unfortunately, there is no one answer for every film. Nor is there a fixed answer for each type of film, as platforms’ needs can change at the drop of a hat. Except that all platforms seem to have an endless appetite for true crime docs, but we digress…

So, this blog article is less of a “how to” for library titles, and more of a “how to think” about them.

Certainly, there are non-exclusive subscription-based (SVOD) platforms that align with various content areas, such as Documentary+, Topic, Wondrium, Curiosity Stream, Coda, Qello, Tastemade, Gaia, Revry, and many more (check out our Digital Distribution Guide for more info). These are platforms that offer a revenue share based on minutes watched. Since they may have not been in existence when the filmmakers’ original distribution deals were arranged, they are definitely worth exploring when one (or more) of them is a fit for your project.

But there are also ad-supported (AVOD) platforms¹, which are free to the end user and rely on commercials that play before the film starts. Generally speaking, AVOD platforms seem to be more lucrative in terms of revenue than specialized SVOD platforms, and we’ve heard that some films are making “real” money them (more on that later). While there’s no guarantee that AVOD platforms will bring in more money than SVOD platforms, or much money at all, this at least makes sense, anecdotally: with the rise in commercial streaming services and especially since the start of the pandemic, folks are watching increasingly more content, but actually spending less above and beyond the Netflix/Amazon Prime/HBO/Disney etc. combination of platforms that they have ostensibly come to view as basic utilities.² So AVOD provides a win-win for platforms and consumers alike.

Until recently, filmmakers have been somewhat reluctant to place their films on AVOD platforms, but they are coming to realize what distributors have known for a few years now—that AVOD can continue to bring in revenue when transactional platforms such as iTunes are no longer performing for a film the way they might have at the beginning of their digital run.

So, we set out to ask what we believed was a simple question: which AVOD platforms are taking which type of library content? The Film Collaborative has some limited experience with AVOD platforms, but we felt it prudent to talk to some folks that do this day in and day out. To that end, we reached out to Nick Savva, Vice President of Content Distribution at Giant Pictures, and Tristan Gregson, Director of Licensing & Distribution at BitMAX.

The answer turns out to be a complicated one. Here’s why:

Most AVOD platforms are looking for all kinds of content. One of the trends that has been occurring for the past few years is the addition of new platforms, not just in the U.S., but globally. And the pandemic has accelerated existing trends, so there are even more new platforms than ever. These platforms are not going to be able to produce or acquire enough new content to justify their existence, so they rely on library titles as much as they do new releases. So, the good news is that there are more outlets and revenue opportunities for library titles than ever.

The not-so-great news is that sometimes AVOD platforms are actually looking for specific types of films, but only for a limited time to fill a specific need. Platforms have a good sense of what percentage of their films are, for example, comedies, dramas, thrillers, horror, documentaries, true crime, etc. When they look at who is watching what, if comedies are overperforming on the platform relative to the percentage of titles they occupy overall, the platform may not take as many comedies for a while until that changes, or they could decide to double down and take more comedies at the expense of other types of films. Conversely, if there is a category that is underperforming, they could decide that they need some fresh meat in that category, or simply decide to take less of it.³

So why exactly is this bad news? Because as the needs of AVOD platforms ebb and flow, the entities with the best chance of succeeding are those that can respond quickly to calls from these platforms for specific content. A high percentage of the work Giant Pictures does with AVOD platforms involves their distributor clients, who use Giant as a sort of white label service. Giant is tasked with placing their content libraries on these platforms because these distributors don’t have the bandwidth to keep up with which platforms want what from month to month. Similarly, BitMAX works with many studios to deliver to these platforms, but the studios are the ones handling the licensing. What this means is that the bulk of content going to AVOD platforms is coming from the content libraries of studios and distributors. That is not to say that films from individual filmmakers aren’t being placed on AVOD platforms by Giant/BitMAX, it’s just that studios and distributors are their go-to sources for content because they can provide a bunch of titles with a quick turnaround.

The sad reality here is that AVOD is one area of distribution where middlemen are being added to the mix in a way that makes it harder for individual filmmakers to take back control of their films.

Many of the filmmakers who have just gotten their rights back often remark to us how glad they are to have done so, as if they are finally getting out of a bad marriage. Even if the relationship wasn’t such a badmarriage, this sentiment—justified or not—perhaps stems from the fact that their TVOD sales had dropped over the years and they felt like their distributor was no longer doing anything for their film, or that they were tired of not receiving reporting because there were long periods of time with no earnings. The last thing they appear to want to do is start up a new relationship with a new distributor or aggregator and incur more encoding costs for a shot in the dark in terms of being accepted by these platforms only to earn $12 a quarter in earnings.

It’s important to really have a look at the reporting your old distributor provided you. There’s a good chance that simply re-creating what your old distributor did—perhaps your film was already on AVOD platforms—is going to give you a completely different outcome. But to the extent that your project has not been tested in the current landscape, what should a filmmaker be thinking about if they find themselves in the position of deciding whether to go it alone or offer their film to another distributor?

It’s Your Time and Money

Bandwidth:

Tristan Gregson remarked that the same rules apply for library titles as when just starting out, and his stance was the following: if you know how to engage your audience then put it somewhere. If not, then don’t. Whether you try to go it on your own or partner with another distributor, unless there is someone that’s going to remind your audience that it’s there, there’s a good chance your film will sit unnoticed in a glut of content. This is going to take some effort and while a new distributor might do a bit of marketing, you are going to have to get creative. Perhaps time the re-release of this older film with a new project of yours?

Cost:
If you go through an aggregator like BitMAX, you are probably looking at a bare minimum of $2,000 for encoding, QC, and delivery and to pitch and deliver to a few SVOD or AVOD platforms. It’s a fee for service, so they will be hands off when it comes to strategy, and uninvolved when it comes to your earnings. If a distributor like Giant Pictures is willing to work with you, it can cost twice that much, but they will be real partners in the sense that they will be proactive in helping you come up with a strategy. They will also take a certain percentage of your earnings. You may also be able to negotiate lower encoding costs in exchange for an increased percentage of your earnings.

What is in it for the Platform?

Metrics:

Nick Savva advises filmmakers to think about your film like a platform would: what are your film’s metrics? These scores can tell a lot about the public’s level of familiarity with your film, and there are data tracking services that distributors and platforms use to determine them. Also among the first things that an acquisitions team would look at would be indications of basic audience awareness, such as the of the number of positive reviews on Amazon, or the ratings on IMDb. If the metrics are good, a deal might be attractive to a platform. Are there any recent reviews? In other words, does your film still hold up?

Is there one Platform that is better for my film than others?

Honestly, there are not all that many AVOD platforms in the U.S. Tubi, Pluto, Roku, Peacock, IMDb TV, and a few others. The good thing about AVOD is that most deals are non-exclusive, meaning that you can be on more than one at once. But should you apply for all of them? How does one decide?

Signal Boost:
The following might not be possible for every film, but, if possible, try to think about the likely television habits of your audience and the specifics of each platform and take advantage of the free signal boost.

People are very familiar with platforms like Netflix and Hulu, but when it comes to platforms like Tubi or Pluto, why would one choose to watch one over the other? The answer might be simpler than you would think!

Does your film have a TV star in it? If they are on the FOX network, chances are that audiences will see ads for Tubi, because Fox is the parent company of Tubi. If they are on NBC, then perhaps Peacock or Xumo will be advertised.

There are also tricks that might apply for documentaries too. Pluto just became available in Latin America and Mexico, so films with Latinx content might want to consider that platform first.

One of The Film Collaborative’s digital distribution titles, The Green Girl, has been doing extremely well on Pluto, but not so well on Tubi or Roku, and for the longest time we couldn’t figure out why. Then it hit us: this documentary is about an actress who famously appeared on the 1960s television show Star Trek. Since Pluto is owned by Viacom, which is the parent company of Paramount, Pluto is the AVOD destination platform for Trekkies!

Keywords:
Make sure your keyword game is strong. Aggregators and distributors will ask you to fill out a metadata sheet with genres/keywords, but you must make sure the choices conform to actual categories and genres on the platforms, which can differ from one another and evolve over time. Distributors have even admitted that it’s hard for them to keep up sometimes, especially if such metadata is capture via web interface. Case in point: The Film Collaborative placed a few films we have been working with for years onto Tubi, but the keywords that we chose when we first submitted the film to our aggregator were based on iTunes genres, which are very narrow. Cut to the films getting up onto Tubi, and they were almost impossible to find without searching for their exact titles. It’s been several months, and we are still struggling, with the help of our aggregator, to get these updated on the platform. Bottom line is that it’s important to be familiar with each platform and know how one might best search for your film and be proactive to ensure that the proper information is being delivered to each platform at the time of delivery.

Pluto TV (owned by CBS/Viacom) offers a dizzying array of genres/categories to choose from (they appear in a vertical sidebar and seem to rearrange themselves periodically)

Tubi’s current “Browse” navigation tab. Tubi’s parent company is Fox Corporation.

Very Mini Library Titles Case Study

We talked to director/producer Kim Furst, whose rights to her 2014 film Flying the Feathered Edge: The Bob Hoover Project came back to her after her aggregator (Juice) declined to renew the term. She expressed that she did not want to use another aggregator like Distribber/Quiver/Bitmax/FilmHub because there was a concern that they might not be around in another 5 years. (As you probably are aware, Distribber has shuttered, and Quiver is not currently accepting films from individual filmmakers and will probably turn into something else).

So, she went with Giant Pictures.

The cost to re-encode was about $4K. While she did not feel great about having to shell out such a huge chunk of cash on a library title, Kim still felt that the film still had life in it, and she wanted to try other distribution avenues, such as public television, that she never managed to do when the film originally came out.

We should note that one of the reasons why Giant might have been interested in the film was that it is narrated by Harrison Ford. The film is about Bob Hoover, an American fighter pilot and air show aviator, and Ford has a longstanding love of flying planes. So, there is some commercial appeal that can be leveraged here.

She is at the stage where they have initiated the re-release. Right now, the film is back up on TVOD platforms, including being re-placed on Amazon, which Giant was able to accomplish despite the platform’s embargo on unsolicited non-fiction content.

We asked Kim to report back on what happens next. We suggested that she note where all of Harrison Ford’s top movies are on AVOD and take note if that platform sees any boost from the connection.

Revenue Range

With so many variables and permutations, it’s hard to give a real range in terms of what’s possible for a library title on AVOD, especially since it’s impossible to know when we are talking about the revenue of a “library” title—as opposed to that of a title that enters AVOD as part of their “new release” window.

When I asked Tristan about revenue, he acknowledged that to even talk about it would put us into “anecdotal space,” because he isn’t aware of what it took for some of his clients to earn, for example, 5 figures during an AVOD revenue period, as compared with other clients who were only able to earn, say, 3 figures. While he admitted that he has seen a single independent film title clear quite a bit, he also reiterated to me that at a certain point of revenue generation, distributors tend to get involved with a title to signal boost, so it isn’t exactly “a fair comparison to those independents working day in and day out to make a few grand on their title. But if the message is that you don’t have to be working with one of the major studios to reach seven figures in revenue, it can still very much be accomplished in this current age of VOD releasing.”

Nick spoke more specifically to AVOD, noting that they “have had a couple of indie titles which have generated $100k+ royalties in 1 month on 1 AVOD platform. But, of course, those are outliers.”

One of our filmmakers told us that they have two filmmaker friends-of-friends (whose films deal with Black Cinema content) for whom Tubi is paying well: one reported $15K a month in residuals while the other one says they are making $4-6K a month on a movie released 10 years ago. Both filmmakers allegedly went through an aggregator, but their friend said they were reluctant to allow the names of their respective films to be shared publicly.

So, as Tristan remarked, it’s best not to hold too tightly onto evidence that is merely anecdotal, because TFC certainly knows films that are making almost nothing on AVOD.

Notes:

1. As we were conceiving this article on Library titles, and realizing how important AVOD could be for an older title, Tiffany Pritchard of Filmmaker Magazine approached us about an article she and Scott Macaulay were writing about AVOD. Its title is Commercial Breaks and it is available in the January 2022 issue of the magazine (behind paywall, at least for now).

2. As a reference, this article discusses how shorter theatrical windows might be accelerating TVOD decline and shows the increase in both spending and subscription stream share from 2019 to 2021. Others, however, predict that streaming services will lose a lot of subscribers in 2022. Still, it’s hard to know how streaming services are faring, as many of them are not transparent in their total number of subscribers and average revenue per year.

3. Stephen Follows assembled a team, called VOD Clickstream, that uses clickstream data to analyze viewing patterns on Netflix between January 2016 and June 2019. He also offers a ton of information on his website. In November 2020, he presented a talk entitled, “Calculating What Types of Film and TV Content Perform Best on SVOD?”, in which he outlined how he believed Netflix navigates how popular a genre is versus what percentage of content of that genre is available on the platform.

David Averbach February 8th, 2022

Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, Documentaries, technology

Our guest blog author this month is Vanessa Domico, who has more than 30 years of business experience in both the corporate and non-profit sectors. In 2000, Vanessa joined the team of WMM (Women Make Movies), first as the Marketing and Distribution Director, and eventually Deputy Director. Wanting to work more closely with filmmakers, Vanessa left WMM in 2004 to start Outcast Films.

As the summer winds down and the new school year approaches, Outcast Films is revving up marketing initiatives for our fall releases. Rolling around in the back of my head is how much technology has changed the business of film distribution: everything from how we position the films to our audience of teachers and librarians to how we deliver the films.

Our primary goal at Outcast is servicing our customers: teachers and librarians. These are the folks that are going to pay money to purchase and rent your film. I think you will agree with me that if teachers and librarians don’t know about the fantastic new documentary you just finished, then what’s the point?

When I started Outcast Films in 2004, we were distributing VHS tapes. A few years later, DVDs (and Blu-rays) hit the market and VHS tapes were quickly made obsolete. Now, here we are in 2018, with educational digital platforms like Kanopy, AVON (Alexander Street Press), and Hoopla, all of whom service the educational and library markets, not to mention Amazon, Netflix, iTunes and so on, digital is moving at light speed forward.

Two years ago, 95% of our income came from DVD sales. Last year that number dropped to 75% and halfway through this year DVD sales only represent approximately 45% of our total sales. By the end of 2020, I believe DVDs will be just like VHS tapes and dinosaurs. There will be some DVD/Blu-ray sales, of course, but for students, teachers, and the increased demand for on-line college classes in the U.S. digital is the future. The problem is technology should work for everyone—big and small – and it doesn’t.

For this blog, I am focusing solely on the educational market, which is Outcast Films’ area of expertise. But giant tech companies like Amazon, Netflix and Hulu also play a huge factor especially in collapsing the markets. For a couple years now, Netflix has been demanding hold back rights for up to three years from the educational platforms like Kanopy and AVON. Now other big tech companies are placing the same demands on producers: you can come with us or go with Kanopy. Most filmmakers will obviously take the bigger money contracts. (I know I would.) But ultimately, this is driving the cost down for consumers which is good for all of us who like to watch films but bad for the bank accounts of filmmakers.

Kanopy’s collection has comprised of approximately 30,000 titles and AVON has over 100,000. It is impossible for these platforms, to market all their films, all the time. That is not a knock against Kanopy or AVON, I think they have been leaders in the industry and I have a tremendous amount of respect for them. They are providing a great service that students and teachers love.

However, a recent monitoring of VIDLIB, a listserv frequented by academic librarians, reveals that many of them are beginning to rail against some platforms like Kanopy and AVON. You can access the entire discussion by signing up for the VIDLIB listserv but for your convenience, I’ve included some anonymous excerpts below:

“We are concerned about our rising costs from Kanopy”
“I believe many of us could not foresee just how expensive streaming, DSLs, etc. would cost us in the long run.”
“Librarians jobs have become more accountant in nature than collection development.”
“Trying to balance the needs of faculty/our community for access with a commitment to continue to develop and maintain a lasting collection is difficult.”
“Our IT department is over-taxed as is and does not have the resources to devote to hosting streaming video files.”
“We basically had to stop all collection development.”
“The paradox of increasing production and availability of media resources and shrinking acquisition budgets, due to streaming costs is a disturbing trend, particularly when considering that 100% of our video budget went to DVD acquisitions just four years ago.”
“(our budget for DVDs) is $20,000 and there’s no way we can purchase in-perpetuity rights for digital files; and, really, there’s no way we can ‘do it all’ or meet all needs.”
“We love Kanopy – but when it costs $150/year to just provide access, not ownership, to one title, it’s really, really hard to justify.”
“State legislators are beginning to put pressure on schools to find ways to reduce the cost of things like books, etc.”
“When colleges and universities are already under fire for the cost of textbooks, etc., asking students to pay one more additional cost gets lumped into the argument about the increasing cost of higher education.”

The concerns these librarians have expressed have been on a slow simmer the last few years but it’s only a matter of time before they hit a full-on pasta boil. One of the most significant concerns, and the one that will affect filmmakers most, is the high cost of streaming.

Another factor that we need to consider is the copyright law and the “Teacher’s Exemption”. With the help of the University of Minnesota, the law is simplified below:

The Classroom Use Exemption
Copyright law places a high value on educational uses. The Classroom Use Exemption (17 U.S.C. §110(1)) only applies in very limited situations, but where it does apply, it gives some pretty clear rights.
To qualify for this exemption, you must: be in a classroom (“or similar place devoted to instruction”). Be there in person, engaged in face-to-face teaching activities. Be at a nonprofit educational institution.
If (and only if!) you meet these conditions, the exemption gives both instructors and students broad rights to perform or display any works. That means instructors can play movies for their students, at any length (though not from illegitimate copies!)

In other words, if a teacher is going to use the film in their classroom, and they teach in a public university or high school, they do not need anybody’s permission to stream the film to their students.

That’s not the best news for filmmakers but I always say: facts are your friends. Knowing that they won’t need your permission, what can you do to ensure teachers see (and love) your film?

Stay with me because I’m going to ask you to do a little math:

If a librarian has a budget of $20,000 a year for films, at an average cost of $150 for a one-year digital site license (DSL), then they can expect to rent approximately 133 DSLs a year. According to Quora, there are nearly 10,000 films currently being made each year and that number is growing (thanks in large part to technology.) The bottom line is that you have a 1.3% chance that your film will be rented by that university or college. If we increase the library’s budget 5 times, your chance increases to 6.5% which are not great odds.

Facts are our friends. If independent film producers and companies like Outcast Films are going to survive in this volatile business, we need to embrace the facts to solve the problems which means doing your homework. Filmmakers who think they have a great film for the educational market, will have to make their film available through digital platforms. But if they want to increase their odds of selling the film, you will also have to do their own marketing – or hire someone who has experience in the business to help you.

Here are a few tips to help you get started:

Define and establish your goals as soon as possible
Write copy for your film with your audience in mind (i.e. teachers are going to want to know how they can use this film in their class)
Organize a college tour before you turn over the rights of the film
In the process, find academic advocates who will present the film at conferences AND recommend it to their librarians.

The educational market is a very important audience to reach for many filmmakers. I think most folks reading this blog would agree there is not a better way to educate than by using film. The educational market can also be lucrative, but librarians cannot sustain the increase in costs for steaming over the long haul. As information flows freely through technology, teachers are becoming savvy to the business and realize they don’t need permission to stream a film in their classroom if they respect the criteria set forth in the copyright law.

Remember, facts are our friends. If you think your film is perfect for the educational market, then do your homework: research, strategize and find partners who will help you.

David Averbach August 1st, 2018

Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, education, Netflix, Uncategorized

If you missed our SXSW Case Study Discussion on The Light of the Moon, or if you just want a copy of the accompanying PowerPoint deck, you can download it here.

Case study discussion of the distribution of SXSW Winner The Light of the Moon diving into topics including: the platform theatrical release, educational, festivals and hybrid theatrical distribution, collaborative nature of the release involving key vendors, the filmmakers, grassroots partnerships, corporate sponsorships, use of social media, publicity firms on both coasts and representing lead actress Stephanie Beatriz, release timing analysis, and socio-cultural impact objective, all while coordinating TVOD and international licensing alongside utilizing the Amazon Festival Stars AVD offering and reconciling when to go direct-to-platform vs. license to buyers.

Participants: Michelle Mower, Imagination Worldwide (Distributor • International Sales Agent), Orly Ravid, The Film Collaborative/MSK (Festival/Theatrical Distribution), Michael Cuomo, Gran Fallon (Producer of The Light of the Moon), and Myriam Schroeter, Stedfast Productions (Co-Producer of The Light of the Moon)

Orly Ravid March 14th, 2018

Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, case studies, Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, education, Film Festivals, iTunes, Key Art, Marketing, Publicity, Social Network Marketing, Theatrical, Vimeo

A recent online web series featured our founder, Orly Ravid, as well as some powerhouse guests in indie film producing and distribution, hosted by WestDocOnline. Here is what we learned from the 1 hour+ panel, primarily focused on documentaries.

Music clearance is important. Surprisingly, many new filmmakers do not realize that any music used in a film must be licensed, both the publishing (the person who wrote the song) and the master (the entity that recorded the song) rights must be secured. Distribution contracts cannot be signed if music clearance has not been secured on your film. This is especially crucial for anyone looking to make a music documentary. For a good primer on this, visit this article: A Filmmaker’s Guide to Music Licensing .
A devoted core fanbase can make a film successful. Richard Abramowitz named several documentaries that his company has theatrically distributed that had an excited and motivated fanbase that could be tapped into with less marketing money than a wide audience film.
There is value in having a global marketing campaign, rather than one territory at a time. Cristine Dewey of ro*co films champions the idea that if your domestic distributor is already launching a marketing campaign, much of which will be found by audiences outside of the U.S. because of online marketing, it makes sense to time theatrical releases in other countries to coincide.
Revenues from documentary sales. Netflix will pay anywhere from low 5 figures to high 6 or even 7 figures for documentaries. It depends on the film’s pedigree. Also, Amazon Festival Stars program was offering $200,000 to filmmakers at the Toronto International Film Festival in exchange for making Amazon Video Direct the exclusive SVOD home for the film. Filmmakers can wait up to 18 months to upload to the platform, allowing for further festival and theatrical revenue.
Distribution is a business. While it is all great and good to produce a film using credit cards, an iPhone and the good will of your friends, distribution is an integral part of the process and needs a budget. “In what world would someone say I have a great idea for a pencil. I’m going to raise $100,000 to make pencils. Then you have a warehouse filled with pencils, and then think about how you will get these into Staples? That’s not a business plan, that’s lunacy. But every day, people do that because this is art. Hope is not a strategy. You have to have a plan and you have to have a budget,” says Richard Abramowitz. “What’s the point of making the film if no one sees it?Marketing and distribution budgeting is the only way to assure the film will get seen and make an impact, short of an excellent marketing commitment by an honest distributor, something so relatively few documentary films enjoy,” said Orly Ravid.

To watch the full panel, find it below.

Sheri Candler January 10th, 2018

Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, Documentaries, International Sales, Marketing

Tags: Cristine Dewey, film distribution, Jonathan Dana, Orly Ravid, Richard Abramowitz, roco films, The Film Collaborative

By Smriti Mundhra

Smriti Mundhra is a Los Angeles-based director, producer and journalist. Her film A Suitable Girl premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in 2017 and is currently playing at festivals around the world, including Sheffield Doc/Fest and AFI DOCS. Along with her filmmaking partner Sarita Khurana, Smriti won the Albert Maysles Best New Documentary Director Award at the Tribeca Film Festival.

asuitablegirl

I recently attended a panel discussion at a major film festival featuring funders from the documentary world. The question being passed around the stage was, “What are some of the biggest mistakes filmmakers make when producing their films?” The answers were fairly standard—from submitting cuts too early to waiting till the last minute to seek institutional support—until the mic was passed to one member of the panel, who said, rather condescendingly, “Filmmakers need to be aware of what their films are worth to the marketplace. Is there a wide audience for it? Is it going to premiere at Sundance? Don’t spend $5 million on your niche indie documentary, you know?”

Immediately, my eyebrow shot up, followed by my hand. I told the panelist that I agreed with him that documentaries—really, all independent films—should be budgeted responsibly, but asked if he could step outside his hyperbolic example of spending $5 million on an indie documentary (side note: if you know someone who did that, I have a bridge to sell them) and provide any tools or insight for the rest of us who genuinely strive to keep the marketplace in mind when planning our films. After all, documentaries in particular take five years on average to make, during which time the “marketplace” can change drastically. For example, when I started making my feature-length documentary A Suitable Girl, which had its world premiere in the Documentary Competition section of this year’s Tribeca Film Festival, Netflix was still a mail-order DVD service and Amazon was where you went to buy toilet paper. What’s more, film festival admissions—a key deciding factor in the fate of your sales, I’ve learned—are a crapshoot, and there is frustratingly little transparency from distributors and other filmmakers when it comes to figuring out “what your film is worth to the marketplace.”

Sadly, I did not get a suitable answer to my questions from the panelist. Instead, I was told glibly to “make the best film I could and it will find a home.”

Not acceptable. The lack of transparency and insight into sales and distribution could be the single most important reason most filmmakers don’t go on to make second or third films. While the landscape does, indeed, shift dramatically year to year, any insight would make a big difference to other filmmakers who can emulate successes and avoid mistakes. In that spirit, here’s what I learned about sales and distribution that I wish I knew a year ago.

As any filmmaker who has experienced the dizzying high of getting accepted to a world-class film festival, followed by the sobering reality of watching the hours, days, weeks and months pass with nary a distribution deal in sight can tell you, bringing your film to market is an emotional experience. This is where your dreams come to die. A Suitable Girl went to the Tribeca Film Festival represented by one of the best agent/lawyers in the business: The Film Collaborative’s own Orly Ravid (who is also an attorney at MSK). Orly was both supportive and brutally honest when she assessed our film’s worth before we headed into our world premiere. She also helped us read between the lines in trade announcements to understand what was really going on with the deals that were being made – because, let’s face it, who among us hasn’t gone down the rabbit hole of Deadline.com or Variety looking for news of the great deals other films in our “class” are getting? Orly kept reminding us that perception is not reality, and that many of these envy-inducing deals, upon closer examination, are not as lucrative or glamorous as they may seem. Sometimes filmmakers take bad deals because they just don’t want to deal with distribution, have no other options, and can’t pursue DIY, and by taking the deal they get that sense of validation that comes with being able to say their film was picked up. Peek under the hood of some of these trade announcements, and you’ll often find that the money offered to filmmakers was shockingly low, or the deal was comprised of mostly soft money, or—even worse—filmmakers are paying the distributors for a service deal to get their film into theaters. There is nothing wrong with any of those scenarios, of course, if that’s what’s right for you and your film. But, there is often an incorrect perception that other filmmakers are somehow realizing their dreams while you’re sitting by the phone waiting for your agent to call.

Depressed yet? Don’t be, because here’s the good news: there are options, and once you figure out what yours are, making decisions becomes that much easier and more empowering.

Start by asking yourself the hard questions. Here are 12+ things Orly says she considers before crafting a distribution strategy for the films she represents, and why each one is important.

At which festival did you have your premiere? “Your film will find a home” is a beautiful sentiment and true in many ways, but distributors care about one thing above all others: Sundance. If your film didn’t beat the odds to land a slot at the festival, you can already start lowering your expectations. That’s not to say great deals don’t come out of SXSW, Tribeca, Los Angeles Film Festival and others, but the hard truth is that Sundance still means a lot to buyers. Orly also noted that not all films are even right for festivals or will have a life that way, but they can still do great broadcast sales or great direct distribution business – but that’s a specific and separate analysis, often related to niche, genre, and/or cast.
What is your film’s budget? How much of that is soft money that does not have to be paid back, or even equity where investors are okay with not being paid back? In other words, what do you need to net to consider the deal a success? Orly, of course, shot for the stars when working on sales for our film, but it was helpful for her to know what was the most modest version of success we could define, so that if we didn’t get a huge worldwide rights offer from a single buyer she could think creatively about how to make us “whole.”
What kind of press and reviews did you receive? We hired a publicist for the Tribeca Film Festival (the incomparable Falco Ink), and it was the best money we could have spent. Falco was able to raise a ton of awareness around the film, making it as “review-proof” as possible (buyers pay attention if they see that press is inclined to write about your film, which in many cases is more important to them than how a trade publication reviews it). We got coverage in New York Magazine, Jezebel, the Washington Post and dozens of other sites, blogs, and magazines. Thankfully, we also got great reviews in Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, and even won the Albert Maysles Prize for Best New Documentary Director at Tribeca. Regardless of how this affected our distribution offers, we know for sure we can use all this press to reignite excitement for our film even if we self-distribute. On the other hand, if you’re struggling to get attention outside of the trades and your reviews are less than stellar, that’s another reason to lower expectations.
What are your goals, in order of priority? Are you more concerned with recouping your budget? Raising awareness about the issues in your film (impact)? Or gaining exposure for your next project/ongoing career? And don’t say “all three”—or, if you do, list these in priority order and start to think about which one you’re willing to let go.
How long can you spend on this film? If your film is designed for social impact, do you intend to run an impact/grassroots campaign? And can you hire someone to handle that, if you cannot? Do you see your impact campaign working hand in hand with your profit objectives, or separately from them? The longer you can dedicate to staying with your film following its premiere, the more revenue you can squeeze out of it through the educational circuit, transactional sales, and more. But that time comes at a personal cost and you need to ask yourself if it’s worth it to you. Side note: touring with your film and self-distributing are also great ways to stay visible between projects, and could lead to opportunities for future work.
Does your film have sufficient international appeal to attract a worldwide deal or significant territory sales outside of the United States? If you think yes, what’s your evidence for that? Are you being realistic? By the way, feeling strongly that your film has a global appeal (as I do for my film) doesn’t guarantee sales. I believe my film will have strong appeal in the countries where there is a large South Asian diaspora—but many of those territories command pretty small sales. Ask your agent which territories around the world you think your film might do well in, and what kinds of licensing deals those territories tend to offer. It’s a sobering conversation.
Does your film fit into key niches that work well for film festival monetization and robust educational distribution? For example, TFC has great success with LGBTQ, social justice, environmental, Latin American, African American, Women’s issues, mental health. Sports, music, and food-related can work well too.
Does your film, either because of subjects or issues or both, have the ability to command a significant social media following? A “significant” social media following is ideally in the hundreds of thousands or millions of followers, but is at least in the high five figures. We know the last thing you want to think about when you’re trying to lock picture, run a crowdfunding campaign, deal with festival logistics, and all the other stress of preparing for your big debut is social media. But don’t sleep on it. Social media is important not only to show buyers that there is interest in your film, but also ideas on how to position your film and which audiences are engaging with it already. Truth be told, unless you’re in the hundreds of thousands or millions of followers range, social media probably won’t make or break your distribution options, but it can’t hurt. And, in our case, it actually helped us get a lot of interest from educational distributors, who were inspired by the dialogue they saw brewing on our Facebook page.
How likely is your film to get great critic reviews, and thus get a good Rotten Tomatoes score? Yeah, not much you can do to predict this one. However, a good publicist will have relationships with critics who can give you some insight into what the critical reaction to your film might be, before you have to read it in print. They also reach out to press who they think will like your film, keep tabs on reactions during your press and industry screenings, and monitor any press who attend your public screenings. This data is super useful for your sales representatives.
How likely is your film to perform theatrically (knowing that very few do), sell to broadcasters (some do but it’s very competitive), sell to SVOD platforms (as competitive as TV), and sell transactionally on iTunes and other similar services (since so many docs do not demand to be purchased)? While these questions are easy to pose and hard to answer, start by doing realistic comparisons to other films based on the subject, name recognition of filmmakers, subject, budget, festival premiere status, and other factors indicating popularity or lack thereof. Also adjust for industry changes and changes to the market if the film you are comparing to was distributed years before. Furthermore, adjust for changes to platform and broadcaster’s buying habits. Get real data about performance of like-films and adjust for and analyze how much money and what else it took to get there.
Can your film be monetized via merchandise? Not all docs can do this, but it can help generate revenue. So, go for the bulk orders of t-shirts, mugs, and tote bags during your crowdfunding campaign and sell that merch! Even if it just adds up to a few hundred extra dollars, for most people it’s pretty easy to put a few products up on their website.
Does your film lend itself to getting outreach/distribution grants, or corporate sponsorship/underwriting? With the traditional models of both film distribution and advertising breaking down, a new possibility emerges: finding a brand with a similar value set or mission as your film to underwrite some portion of your distribution campaign. I recently spoke to a documentary filmmaker who sold licenses to his film about veterans to a small regional banking chain, who then screened the film in local communities as part of their outreach effort. The bank paid the filmmakers $1000 per license for ten separate licenses without asking them to give up any rights or conflict with any of their other deals—that’s $10,000 with virtually no strings attached. Not bad!

Sadly, Netflix is no longer the blank check it once was (or that I imagined it to be) and the streaming giant is taking fewer and fewer risks on independent films. Thankfully, Amazon is sweeping in to fill the gap, and their most aggressive play has been their Festival Stars program. If you’re lucky enough to premiere in competition at one of the top-tier festivals (Sundance, SXSW, and Tribeca for now, but presumably more to come), then you already have a distribution deal on the table: Amazon will give you a $100,000 non-recoupable licensing fee ($75,000 for documentaries) and a more generous (double) revenue share than usual per hour your film is streamed on their platform for a term of two years. For many independent films, this could already mean recouping a big chunk of your budget. It also provides an important clue as to “what your film is worth to the marketplace”—$100,000 seems to be the benchmark for films that can cross that first hurdle of landing a competition slot at an A-list festival.

I’ll admit, I was a snob about the Amazon deal when I first heard about it. I couldn’t make myself get excited about a deal that was being offered to at least dozen other films, sight unseen, with no guarantee of publicity or marketing. A Facebook post by a fellow filmmaker (who had recent sold her film to a “legit” distributor) blasting the deal as “just a steep and quick path to devalue the film” left me shaken. But again, appearances proved to be deceiving.

I discussed my concerns with Orly, and she helped me see that with so few broadcast and financially meaningful SVOD options for docs, having a guaranteed significant platform deal with a financial commitment and additional revenue share is actually a great thing. Plus, one can build in lots of other distribution around the Amazon deal and end up with as robust a release as ever there could be. Orly says one should treat Amazon as a platform (online store) but as a distributor and that can provide for all the distribution potential. If one does manage to secure an all-rights deal from a “legit” distributor (we won’t name names, but it’s the companies you might see your friends selling their films to), oftentimes that distributor is just taking the Amazon deal on your behalf anyway, and shaving off up to 30% of it for themselves. So the analysis needs to be what is that distributor doing, if anything, to create additional value that merits taking a piece of a deal you can get on your own? Is it that much more money? Is it a commitment to do a significant impactful release? Are the terms sensible in light of the added value and your recoupment needs? Can you accomplish the same via DIY? Perhaps you can, but don’t want to bother. That’s your choice. But know what you are choosing and why.

Independent filmmakers are, yet again, in uncharted territory when it comes to distribution. Small distributors are closing up shop at a rapid pace. Netflix and Hulu are buying less content out of festivals, and creating more of it in house. Amazon’s Festival Stars program was just announced at Sundance this year (2017) and doesn’t launch until next Spring, so the jury is out as to whether it will really be the wonderful opportunity for filmmakers that it claims to be. By this time next year, several dozen films will have inaugurated the program and will be in a position to share their experiences with others. I hope my fellow filmmakers will be willing to do so. Given the sheer variety of films slated to debut on the platform, this data can be our first real chance to answer the question that the funder on the panel I attended refused to: “What is my film worth to the marketplace?”

Orly adds that the lack of transparency is, of course, in great part attributable to the distributors and buyers, who maintain a stranglehold on their data, but it’s also due to filmmakers’ willful blindness and simple unwillingness to share details about their deals in an effort to keep up appearances. That’s totally understandable, but if we can break the cycle of competing with each other and open up our books, we will not only have more leverage in our negotiations with buyers, but will be equipped to make better decisions for our investors and our careers. Knowledge is power, and if we all get real and share, we’ll all be informed to make the best choices we can.

admin July 5th, 2017

Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, education, Film Festivals, Hulu, International Sales, iTunes, Marketing, Netflix, Publicity, Theatrical

David Averbach is Creative Director and Director of Digital Distribution Initiatives at The Film Collaborative.

When distributing your film, a lot of time is spent waiting for answers. Validation can come only intermittently, and the constant string of “no”s is an anxiety-ridden game of process of elimination. Which doors open for your film and which doors remain closed determines the trajectory of its distribution, whether it’s festival, theatrical, digital, education or home video (until that’s dead for good).

I work with filmmakers, way down-wind of this long and drawn-out process, who, after exhausting all other possibilities, have “chosen” DIY digital distribution as a last resort.

TFC’s DIY digital distribution program has helped almost 50 filmmakers go through the process of releasing their film digitally over the past 5 years and with most of them, I have often felt as though I were giving a pep-talk to the kid who got picked last for the dodgeball team. “Hang in there, just stick to it…you’ll show them all.”

Is DIY Digital Distribution anything more than a last resort? Perhaps not…

DIY vs. DOA

Since TFC was formed over six and a half years ago, we have optimistically used “DIY” as a term of empowerment, where access and transparency had finally reached a point where one could act as one’s own distributor. After all, we tell these (literally) poor, exhausted filmmakers, “no one knows your film better than you do”, so “no one can do a better job of marketing it.” With a little gumption, a few newsletters and handful of paid Facebook posts, you, too, might prove all the haters wrong and net even more earnings than Johnny next door who sold his film to what he thought was a reputable distributor but never saw a dime past the MG (minimum guarantee) in his distribution agreement. We even wrote two case study books about it.

It’s not that I’m being untruthful with these filmmakers. Nor is it the case that these films are necessarily of poor quality. What they have in common is a lack of visibility. Most had some sort of festival run, and only a handful were released theatrically, usually with one- or two-day engagements in a handful of cities. Occasionally, we’ll get a film that has four-walled in New York or Los Angeles for a week. Or sometimes ones that have played on local PBS affiliates or even on Showtime. But their films are not even close to being household brand names. So without the exposure or the marketing budget, they can do little more than to deliver their film to TVOD platforms like iTunes and hope for the best.

So what happens to these films? The news, as a whole, is not good. Based on what I’ve seen from these films in the aggregate, and all things being equal, if you DIY/dump your film onto only iTunes/Amazon/GooglePlay with moderate festival distribution but no real money left for marketing, you will be lucky to net more than $10K on TVOD platforms in your film’s digital life.

And the poorer the filmmaking quality of your film, or the less recognizable the cast, or the less “niche” your film is, the more likely it will be that you won’t even earn much more revenue than what is required to pay off the encoding and delivery fees to get your film onto these platforms in the first place (which is around $2-3K).

Which is why, as of late, I’ve been aggressively suggesting to filmmakers that holding off on high profile TVOD platforms and instead trying to drive traffic to their websites and offering sales and rentals of their film via Vimeo On Demand or VHX, two much cheaper options, might be a better use of their limited remaining funds.

But am I down on DIY? Not necessarily.

Risky Business

Granted, there are a lot of films out there for which The Film Collaborative can do very little for in the area of digital distribution other than hold filmmakers’ hands. But what about for films working at the “next level up” from last-resort-DIY? Films who have either gotten a no-MG or modest-MG distribution offer?

Many distributors and aggregators working at this level will informally promise some sort of marketing, but many times those marketing efforts are not specifically listed contractually in the agreement. So when filmmakers ask me whether going with a no-MG aggregator is better than doing DIY, this is my answer…

It’s important to remember that, once a film is on iTunes, no one will care how it got there. And by this I mean with no featured placement, just getting it on to the platform. So, if that’s all a distributor/aggregator is doing, this is not the kind of deal that a filmmaker can dump into someone else’s hands and move on to their next project. In fact, many aggregators will send you a welcome packet with tips and suggestions on how to market your film on social media, such as Facebook. In other words, they are literally expecting you to do your own marketing. Not just do but pay for. So, it is entirely possible that all that an aggregator or distributor is doing is fronting your encoding costs, which they will later recoup from your gross earnings, but only after they take their cut off the top. And if your distributor is offering you a modest MG, you must be prepared for the possibility that that MG may be all the earnings you are ever going to see. Certainly, we have seen many, many filmmakers in this position.

So the question remains: Is DIY still too risky for all but films that have run out of options?

It’s a hard question to answer, mostly because there is no ONE answer. Undoubtedly, some films will be helped with such an arrangement and some films will not.

A View from the Other Side…

Distributors, of course, will stick to the sunny side of the street. They will tell you that DIY is too risky for the vast majority of films, and remind you that distribution is more than getting a film on to one or two platforms.

When I asked Gravitas Ventures founder Nolan Gallagher, a veteran in distribution and whose co-execs have a combined 50+ years in distribution experience, about his feelings regarding DIY, he was quick to point out that the main difference between a proven distributor and DIY is that while much of the work in DIY happens in year 1, distributors can help in year 3 or year 5 or beyond. He believes that DIY individual filmmakers will be shut out from new revenue opportunities (i.e. the VOD platforms of the future) that will be launched by major media companies or venture capital backed entrepreneurs in the years to come because these platforms will turn to established companies with hundreds or thousands of titles on offer.

This is a fair point, in theory, but I honestly cannot recall a single instance of one of our filmmakers from 2010-2013 jumping for joy over that fact that his or her distributor had suddenly found a meaningful new VOD opportunity in years 3-5, nor have we heard of any specific efforts or successes down the line. But it’s good to know one can expect this if signing with a distributor.

He also mentioned that many of Gravitas’ documentarians receive multiple 5 figures in annual revenue over 5 years after a film first debuted.

That’s nice for those filmmakers…But what about the ones that don’t? It would be ludicrous to suggest that any decent film, with the proper marketing and industry connections, can become a respectable grosser on iTunes.

By no means am I singling out Gravitas in order to pick on them in any way. For many films, clearly they do a terrific job.

But does that mean that there aren’t a handful of filmmakers that have gone through aggregators like Gravitas or other smaller distributors that many TFC films have worked with, such as The Orchard, A24, Oscilloscope, Virgil, Wolfe, Freestyle Digital Media, Breaking Glass Pictures, Amplify, Wolfe, Zeitgeist Films, Dark Sky Films, Tribeca Films, Sundance Selects, who are not entirely convinced that they were well served by their distributor? Of course not.

The Million Dollar Question…

The question I really wanted to know was more of a hypothetical one than one that assigns blame: if these so-called “borderline films” that went through aggregators/distributors had done DIY instead, how close could they have come netting the same amount of earnings in the end? Is it possible that they could have gotten more?

This is a hard question—or, should I say, a nearly impossible question—to answer, because no one has a crystal ball. But also because of the continued lack of transparency surrounding digital earnings, despite initiatives like Sundance Institute’s The Transparency Project, and because the landscape is continually evolving.

A recent article in Filmmaker Magazine, entitled “The Digital Lowdown,” discusses how independent filmmakers struggle to survive in an overcrowded digital marketplace and “admits” that niche-less festival films will only gross in the range of $100K-$200K, and that, in fact, talks about a “six-figure goal.” But in almost the same breath, there is a caveat. Sundance Artist Services warns that “…if a filmmaker spends about $100,000 in P&A to finance a theatrical run, they’re probably going to be making that much from digital sources.”

I have heard many stories of distributors and filmmakers alike, who put “X” dollars combined into P&A for both theatrical and digital only to make a similar amount back in the end. So what’s the point? If you look at distribution from the perspective of paying back investors, are a good portion of filmmakers netting close to nothing, no matter whether they do DIY or whether they gear up for a theatrical and digital distribution via a distributor? If a film does not succeed monetarily, is the consolation prize merely visibility and exposure? (Which is not nothing, but it’s not $$ either).

Sweet/Talk

A few months ago, my colleague Bryan Glick posted a terrific piece on our blog that questioned the ROI of an Oscar^®-qualifying run, given the unlikelihood of being shortlisted. Bryan implies that because filmmakers like hearing “yes,” and like having their egos stroked, when publicists, publications, screening series, cinemas, and private venues all lure filmmakers with a possibility of an Oscar^®, something takes over and they lose perspective at the very moment they need it most.

Could the same be true for a distribution strategy? Are filmmakers so happy to be offered a distribution deal at all that they are unable to walk away from that distribution deal, even if they suspect that it undervalues their film? And could a viable DIY option change that?

Evaluating Success with DIY

Last fall, I began to think about what a “successful” DIY digital release could look like. On the low end, we’ve heard about a magical $10K figure that I discussed above…in the context of MGs paid to Toronto official selections via Vimeo on Demand, and Netflix offers to Sundance films via Sundance Artists Services. So it would have to be at least greater than $10K. And on the high end, it would have to be at least $100K that the filmmaker gets to net over a 10-year period.

Working backwards, how can this be achieved and is it possible to recreate that strategy via DIY?

One thing that gave me hope was when my colleague Orly Ravid, acting as sales agent, negotiated a licensing low-six-figure deal with Netflix for the film Game Face, about LGBTQ athletes coming out. The film won numerous audience awards at film festivals, but had no theatrical release. Timing, as well as the sports and LGBT niche, made this film perfect for a DIY release. The only catch was the Netflix insisted on a simultaneous SVOD & TVOD window, so Netflix and iTunes releases started within one day of each other. TFC serviced the deal through our flat-fee program via Premiere Digital Services.

Lessons Learned from the DIY Release of Tab Hunter Confidential

This past Spring, TFC spearheaded the digital release of Tab Hunter Confidential, a film for which we also handled festival and theatrical distribution, as well as sales. Truth be told, this film almost went through a distributor. In the end, however, after a protracted period of negotiation, an offer was made, but knowing how much Netflix was willing to offer, Orly advised the filmmaker to walk away from the deal and try our hand at a DIY release. The filmmaker agreed, and we serviced the Netflix deal via Premiere. However, as Netflix wanted the film for June, which is Gay Pride Month, we had a limited amount of time in which to do iTunes, and I was determined to make the most of it.

So what were the goals? And how could we get there?

I had been trolling both the “Independent” and “Documentary” sections on iTunes for months in preparation for what has now become this article on DIY. I had been noticing that while it is easy to get a film into the “New & Noteworthy” section in “Documentaries,” which contains at hundreds of films, the similar section in “Independent” is limited to about 32. So how could one get there? And how could one’s film be featured in the top carousel in “Independent” or in any of the genre categories? Would it help to offer iTunes exclusivity? Would it help to do iTunes Extras? Could we contact Apple and try and schedule something? What else could be done? These are the questions that I set out figure out on my own, or to ask our aggregator, Premiere Digital Services.

How can I get my film to be one of the 30+ films in the “Independent” Section of iTunes? This section is populated at Apple’s discretion. Their iTunes division is based in L.A., not Silicon Valley, and they attend film festivals and are very up-to-date on the indie film landscape. It’s clear, however, that while they do speak with distributors and aggregators about what’s coming down the pipeline, most of the decisions about what is to receive placement in this section occur within a week or two of the release date in question, and are decided ultimately by iTunes. I informed Premiere Digital that we were very interested in being placed in Independent, and they told me that they have weekly calls with iTunes and that—closer to the date of release—they would mention the film to them. In the end—spoiler alert—we did manage to get Tab into this section. But there were no back room deals to get that to happen…so I can hereby confirm that it is possible to be featured on the iTunes store based solely on your film and the specifics of its release.

Rotten Tomatoes Score: Out of approximately 100 films that appeared from late November 2015 to early February 2016 (which I kept track of manually, so the following is not completely scientific), about 50 of those had a “fresh” rotten tomatoes score. About 40 of those 50 had RT scores over 80%, and many of those were Certified as Fresh. Of the remaining 50 films, about 20 had “rotten” RT scores, and about 30 had no score at all. Luckily, Tab Hunter Confidential has an RT score of 87%, so I knew I was safe from that perspective. But while I was investigating, I was particularly interested in those films without a score. I noticed that many of them had star power attached, and a few of them were holiday-themed. A few of them were Lionsgate titles. And a few sports-related and horror titles, which always seem to rise to the top. I glanced at the Independent section for this week (third week in August), and these numbers pretty much bear out, save the holiday ones. The takeaway here was that if your film did not have a theatrical (and therefore perhaps does not have a RT score), if it doesn’t have famous people in it, it’s not about sports or is not in the horror genre, your chances of appearing in this section as a DIY film going through an aggregator seem pretty slim.

Check in, check out dates. As many of you know, films always end up in one of Apple’s genre sections. They stay there a few weeks or even a few months until they are bumped out of that category by newer items. But those sections are very glutted. The “Independent” section is a second placement, one that is curated by Apple, of only three rows of films. One thing that I became acutely aware of was the high turnaround in this section. Films seemed to be refreshed twice a week: once on Tuesdays (release day), and then again on Fridays. This was more or less consistent, although I got the feeling that on a few occasions things were a bit early or a bit late.

At any rate, it was very clear that if films were not pulling their weight, they would be booted from the “Independent” section for something else. At least 1/3 of the films were gone after only a few days. After all, Apple is in the business of making money off these films too. What occurred to me is that if filmmakers are doing distribution deals to get placement, and their films only last 3 days in the “Independent” section, and that measly placement is what amounts to the big perk/payoff of going through a distributor, it’s a pretty sad day for either the filmmaker, the distributor, or both.

How can I get my film featured in the top carousel? It turned out to be the same answer as for the Independent section in general, but I can admit it now…I was a pest: I asked multiple people at Premiere this question. I was told over and over that Apple will make a request for layered artwork if they are interested in featuring the film. Two weeks before the release date I had not heard anything. But less than a week before, Premiere received the request for artwork from Apple. We ended up being featured in both the “Independent” and “Documentary” sections.

Why did they pick us? I am not completely sure, but here are my guesses: We had a great film festival run. The film was based on a bestselling book. We had a high RT score; we did a 40+ city theatrical; we had a lot of press, and we had a publicist; the film was apparently not doing terribly in the iTunes Pre-Order section, Tab Hunter did many interviews when the theatrical came out; Tab Hunter is freaking Tab Hunter; the film spans both LGBT genres and the genre of women of a certain age who came of age in the 1950s and still remember Tab’s poster on their bedroom walls; the artwork was classy; it was almost June; we gave them an exclusive (although I don’t think they ever advertised it as such); we did an international release on iTunes (we were told that Apple likes films to have more than one territory to be featured, which is kind of strange, because it wasn’t featured in any other iTunes store, like Canada or UK); and lastly, we did some iTunes custom artwork and iTunes Extras.

Walking the walk. Speaking of customization, one thing that I noticed about every film in the “Independent” section was that most detail pages contained customized promotion background artwork. Apple likes this. It gives the film branding, credibility. Apple has two different kinds of background art one for the iTunes store and one for AppleTV. We opted to do just the iTunes store art, which is an extra $75 conformance fee at Premiere. We also did iTunes Extras basic package, for about $700 extra, which offers a chance to include bonus features, such as outtakes and other exclusive video. Since we were planning on including bonus interviews on our DVD, we included that file, as well as 10 minutes of interviews for which iTunes is the only place that they are available. I’m not sure if Extras helped the featured placement, since we were literally down to the wire on having them appear on the store in time for the release. (At the last minute, we needed a looping background audio for iTunes, which we didn’t realize was mandatory, so if you go the Extras route, don’t forget that that audio file is needed).

Results. All in all, we did everything we could, and it paid off. We were featured in both the carousels of the “Independent” and “Documentary” genre sections, and stayed in the “Independent” carousel for a full week and in “Documentary” carousel for two weeks. We stayed in the “New & Noteworthy” part of “Independent” for several weeks. At its peak, we reached #2 in Documentaries, being surpassed only by Michael Moore’s Where to Invade Next, which months later is still in the “New & Noteworthy” part of “Independent.” We made sure Tab Hunter Confidential shows up in both the iTunes Extras section and the “LGBT Movies” Collection section. The more places to find the film, after all, the more chance of it being rented or purchased.

After over 3 months, around the third week of August, Tab Hunter Confidential was the 12th All-Time Bestselling LGBT Doc in the iTunes store. As of the date of this blog, it has dipped down the 14th. It is still in the “New & Noteworthy” part of “Documentaries,” although to be fair that section contains hundreds of films.

Regrets? Could we have stayed longer in the iTunes carousels? Two things worked against us. First, although there was a social media push when the film was released, it was pretty limited, as we had only a small P&A budget. With more of a spend, we could have gotten more attention during the second week, and perhaps sales would have warranted the film sticking around for longer. Other films, such as Gravitas’ Requiem for the American Dream, for which TFC handled the Theatrical, featuring Noam Chomsky, have done a much better job surfing this wave. Fortuitous timing with Bernie Sanders, but that is a story for another day.

Although we offered TVOD exclusivity to Apple until June, it was unclear whether they really cared about that, as they never promoted it as such, and we probably should have released on Amazon, GooglePlay and Vudu on the same day as iTunes.

(Speaking of Amazon and GooglePlay, I once asked someone who used to work at Premiere how one gets featured on those other platforms’ stores. What they told me was shocking: Amazon and GooglePlay basically copy content ideas from the iTunes store. This was about a year ago, so who knows if this is still happening, or if it was even true at all. But I was kind of blown away by this.)

Conclusion. There are undoubtedly things one could immediately try and recreate from the steps that were taken with Tab Hunter Confidential. However, who is to know if they could work a second time, with a different film and different timeframe?

I am not suggesting in this article that distribution deals are unnecessary. Many companies have a ton of industry connections and experience that one might not be able to recreate with DIY.

But in this case, the filmmaker is thrilled, and my TFC team believes that dollar for dollar, the filmmaker walked away with a guaranteed net that is more than they would have received had they taken the distribution deal that was offered to them by a distributor.

So should DIY be considered a dirty word? Only you can decide if it is right for you film. As a whole, the jury might still be out, but, at the very least, I suspect that we’re going to get more filmmakers interested in iTunes background art.

Be sure to look out for Tab Hunter Confidential, on digital platforms, and now on DVD and Blu-Ray, which have recently been released by our friends at FilmRise.

David Averbach September 6th, 2016

Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, case studies, Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, education, iTunes, Marketing, Netflix

Guest blog post by Wendy Bernfeld

Logo TV Festival 2011 BLANC

The Cannes Film Festival starts today, and any Cannes season would not be complete without an update from our dear friend and colleague Wendy Bernfeld, Founder and Managing Director of Rights Stuff and co-author of our second case study book in 2014 Selling Your Film Outside the U.S. (free on Amazon Kindle and Apple iBooks. Wendy specializes in Library and Original Content acquisition/distribution, international strategy / deal advice, for traditional media (film, TV, pay TV), digital media (Internet/IPTV, VOD, mobile, OTT/devices), and web/cross-platform/transmedia programming, and also active on various film festival / advisory boards, such as IDFA, Binger Film Institute, Seize the Night, Outdoor FilmFest, and others, including TFC! Follow her on Twitter: @wbernfeld.

Selling Your Film Outside the U.S.

What’s happened out there in the two years since TFC first published Selling Your Film Outside the U.S. (“The Book”)?

My introductory chapter to the book, entitle, “Digital Distribution in Europe” provided a snapshot of the evolving sector at that point in time. However, by now, the sector, particularly in the area of SVOD and AdVOD, has leaped even more forward, and includes more mature services as well as new niche and thematic services out there— as well as some services with an increased appetite for foreign language, art house and documentary films/series (finally).

A. Blurred Lines — Traditional vs. Digital — Hybrid Platforms

More recent trends 2015-16 include increasingly blurred dividing lines between so-called traditional vs digital players .

Traditionals: Many traditional players, internationally, (like telecoms, cable and free tv) have now become more digital, by either 1) bysetting up their own competing, or complementary, multi-window VOD offerings such as SVOD services (e.g. Channel 9’s STAN in Australia or Liberty Global’s MyPrime in both Switzerland and Netherlands); or 2) electing to instead “sleep with the enemy” by just hosting digital channels like Netflix, Spotify, etc. on their set-top box (e.g. Orange, ComHem Sweden, Virgin UK). Some traditionals opt to distinguish the brand identity of the VOD service from the main service, (different names); while others unite both services under one brand, such as CanalPlay (C+) or Viasat’s VIAPLAY. Recent developments include BBC announcing it will start SVOD internationally, after also migrating its Channel 3 to digital-only online offering; and ITV starting CURIO, a nonfiction SVOD in the UK.
Digitals: Correspondingly, the so-called formerly digital-only players like Netflix, Amazon (previously more complementary or second window) are now acting a great deal like the traditional players. Think: old-fashioned commissioning broadcasters who increasingly require first-window status and exclusivity, and who are funding “originals”, getting involved competitively commissioning films from development stage etc. and fashioning game-changing windows.

Despite the complexity, this is overall great news for creators/rights-holders since it allows even more opportunity to maximize revenues and audiences per successive window, platform and region, if one takes the time to do it right.

B. VODs Per Window:

Lets look at various platforms in each window today, from TVOD, DTO, through to SVOD, AdVOD, etc. Note that many deliberately offer MULTI-model consumer services – such as Orange, Canal Plus and BSKYB (TVOD/DTO, SVOD), Amazon (Instant and Prime, for TVOD/DTO and SVOD, respectively) and Wuaki – while others (Netflix and Curio) operate under just one consumer business model.

TVOD/DTO:
1. For the Big5 (Google, Amazon, iTunes, Xbox, PS), one still generally goes through a digital aggregator, like Juice, Cinedigm, Kinonation, and Syndicado in N.America. Outside N.America, EMEA counterparts in include one of Rights Stuff clients MOMEDIA (attractive multi-platform new biz model, lower cost for more platforms and combined with social media/marketing) – and others like DoCo/ODMedia (NL), MoviePartnership, and Under the MilkyWay.
  Shop around…these aggregators they have different models and price alone shouldn’t be the only indicator. Also look at their marketing/positioning: some take your IP, others (like Rights Stuff, TFC) do not.
2. Going direct to the others in TVOD/DTO:
  Don’t stop at one or even all of the Big5. The play is to have multiple deals , non exclusive, staggered, in all the windows, in each region. Virtually every country has an active telecom and cable or DTH competitor in the region, as well as mobile and online /consumer electronics players who offer VOD, so licensing non-exclusive TVOD to them on top of others is a good first step in the chain.
  
  Beyond the utility companies, some other examples in TVOD/DTO include premium pay tv services or platforms like CanalPlus (France and other regions) and BSkyB, (UK, Germany, Italy, New Zealand). Also theatrical chains in some countries, such as Cineplex in Canada or Pathé in Holland, have VOD arms and thus can offer complementary marketing of films in theatrical window with the subsequent TVOD/DTO window. Also check out online VOD indie film specialist FilmDoo (well-curated indie/art house focused, now in UK/EIRE and soon expanding), and as earlier written, Curzon offers day-and-date theatrical combined with VOD in UK. Wuaki announced moves into 15 countries internationally by end of 2016, most are now TVOD/DTO but the Spain HQ is an SVOD OTT platform. The NFB in Canada started TVOD/DTO in N.America and recently in 2016 an SVOD service, and they now buy docs/films from other sources and regions, too.
3. Deals: TVOD/DTO continues to be typically a rev share model and sometimes only a loss leader, but can help drive critical awareness, especially when accompanied by social media marketing and audience engagement strategies. Sometimes, film dependent (for eg if a very niche film) it saves money to skip the big5 (who require costly specs) and license direct to the other international tvod/dto platforms, as then at least one participates from day one in revenues, vs having to recoup expensive deliverables.
SVOD/PAY – whether first and second windows:
As predicted, this window has so far overall been most remunerative since it’s usually structured by a flat fee license fee (although smaller or niche thematic platforms in the larger USA market (such as Fandor or Indieflix) are still offering just a revenue share formula, which can make the returns lackluster). We generally favor licensing to platforms that pay even a modest flat fee, upfront. Or in some cases in the ‘’back end’’ i.e. rev share to start, then if the revenues at the end of a year (or the window) don’t reach, say, $1000, the platform pays the difference. That sort of model can be attractive for startup platforms who truly believe in the power of their SVOD service but are cash-strapped at the start. So one can license to a less remunerative platform, which does a great job of curation, editorial, placement, and also license other SVOD platforms who may be more remunerative for you.
1. In the USA, you’ve finally seen growth since 2015 in the SVOD sector for documentaries, including the Curiosity Stream SVOD OTT platform (by former Discovery founder, John Hendricks), whose programs tend towards educational and traditional. They are usually on a rev-share only model, whereas competitor xive.tv (SVOD OTT) also buys docs features/series, but over a wider range of topics including more populist/reality content- and xive.com works on a flat fee and/or combo deal model. And a deal with well-curated xive.tv delivers an extra ‘lift’’ in reach by providing carriage on other platforms (Hulu, Roku, Amazon, etc.).
2. In EMEA/beyond, some other SVOD OTT platforms for docs and arthouse have arisen such as CURIO in UK (via ITV), Filmin (Spain, Portugal, Mexico). Mobil has now transformed its model to a curated daily film+library, a lower price and is complete with hefty investment by Chinese backers/reach into China. They also started paying some flat fees, or MGs, for select higher-end indies, as opposed to the pure rev share SVOD model of earlier days.
ADVOD:
Although TubiTV/AdRise in USA and Hulu (multi-model in AdVOD and SVOD) are strong platforms offering solid returns to producers in the AdVOD sector, there aren’t many doing the same in EMEA. Here, again, it’s worthwhile to have your films spread on other free AdVOD platforms (vs pirate sites) so the returns are cumulative and there’s cross-promotion. Sometimes a film sampled on AdVOD can help to yield revenues from DTO (e.g. if a consumer discovers a lesser known film on an AdVOD platform and decides then to buy it on iTunes, while they’d not have bought it unknown before).

Some updates on the AdVOD sector in EU: Viewster.com (27 countries in EMEA) has shifted focus (since our last reference in the book) from buying arthouse/festival films, to millennial content, including edgier, fast-paced docs, some originals and anime. In 2015 they had added an SVOD anime service, but in March 2016 shut it down, as others have become more aggressive in that space. DailyMotion, EU competitor to Youtube, were sometimes paying flat fees and sometimes commissioning series, but a recent sale by Orange to Vivendi may bring changes. Channel4 (UK) recently launched WalterPresents, an AdVOD site focused specifically on dramatic series and some films strictly from outside the UK.
HOW TO REACH THE PLATFORMS:
As before, one goes via aggregators for Big5, but your agent/representative, or distributor/sales agent, OR YOU YOURSELF can hit up the others direct.

REPS: I highly recommend interviewing your potential sales agent/distributor, with new questions such as asking 1) if they’ve been active in digital lately vs just their traditional buyers; and 2) if so, then with which types of platforms—Big5-7 or also beyond to International? If not, it doesn’t have to be a barrier, if they’re willing to allow nonexclusivity in digital, and/or to allow you or digital agents to assist and collaborate alongside.
FUNDING (including by SVODs):
Although beyond the scope of this article, note In 2015-16 there’s been increased activity in 5-6 figure prebuying/funding of originals or premieres (film, series)—not just from English regions and not only via Netflix and Amazon, but also other international and EMEA services like OneNet Poland, IcFlix, Telenet, KPNPlay, Vimeo, Vivendi/Canal+, etc.

On the Amazon front, aside from bigbudget originals via Ted Hope’s division such as ChiRaq at Berlinale and Woody Allen this Cannes, they also fund weboriginals, digital series, via prototyping schemes and audience involvement/feedback. Netflix has been intensely active in funding originals, including docs and nonfiction (while a few years ago that was a rarity); more deals in arthouse, docs and foreign will be announced at or after Cannes.

In Canada there is a funding for coproduction in digital programs; And in France/EU, Vivendi (owner of Canal+ and DailyMotion) just in April 2016 launched its “Studio+” initiative &,dash; funding short-form original series for mobile and telecom operators.
TAKEAWAYS
As before in the 2014 Book, the following have intensified:
- Act quickly and work collaboratively (filmmakers + agents/distributors) to seize timing opportunities, particularly around certain countries where (s)VOD activities and platforms or hotly competing.
- Balance traditional and digital platforms, buyers and funders carefully in order to capture the cumulative and incremental revs in the nonexclusive deal sector, while also developing a longer term platform pipeline for future.
- Don’t stop at just one deal, unless exclusivity or funding elements are in play and worth it.
- Don’t be blocked per se by rights issues. Pragmatic business deals where others are “cut in” can help make those melt away
- Hybrid distribution: We as consultants/agents, aside from working direct for producers and platforms, now increasingly are retained by sales agents, distributors and even aggregators – as although they have the IP, they don’t always know all the others to sell to after going beyond the Big 5-7; this type of collaboration with producers and other reps on distribution yields good results (although time consuming at first) with each stakeholder getting a smaller piece but of a bigger pie. At the end of the day, 100% of zero is still zero.
- If not using a middleman at all, consider teaming up (especially if only selling a single film) with other producers to co-curate a mini-package of films around specific themes (e.g. eco, female, etc). This is particularly useful where the platforms don’t know you or your films, and it also helps program the service for their platform.
- Don’t abdicate distribution entirely to third parties, as in traditional past; now it is increasingly key to be aware of (if not participating more in) distribution and marketing (e.g. via social media). Help audiences know where to find your film!

Looking forward to seeing your films over here in EMEA!

Orly Ravid May 11th, 2016

Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, book, case studies, Digital Distribution, Distribution, education, International Sales, iTunes, Netflix

platforms

Always check with your lab or distributor to make sure their deliverable specs adhere to what is outlined below. Especially deliverables outside North America, which are sure to diverge from what is below. Much of this may apply to films who have sold to distributors, but this post is mostly aimed at those doing DIY distribution. The following also mostly applies to TVOD platforms, but may also apply to others. Again, check with your distributor/lab before you produce any deliverables.

Know when not to do iTunes
iTunes is expensive. It will cost at least $2K to do iTunes/Amazon/GooglePlay. Think of how many people will need to rent your film at $4 (and that’s before the platform’s cut) for you to recoup that money, and then think how many more will have to do so for you to recoup your investment. Are your 1500 Facebook fans going to come through for you? Most probably won’t. A better option might be to do VHX or Vimeo on Demand and spend that money on marketing to drive people to your site. We have handled almost 50 films in the past three years via our DIY Digital Distribution Program, and the bottom line is that if you expecing people to find your film simply because it’s on iTunes while you sit back and move on to your next project, you are probably going to be in for a rude awakening.
Subtitles and Closed Captioning (part 1)
Pretty much the only way to go nowadays is to submit a textless master, with external subtitles. This can get kind of tricky, so it’s important to understand what is needed and to not expect that the lab you are working with is impervious to mistakes.
- Your film is in English and has no subtitles
  You will need to produce a Closed Captioning file
- Your film is 100% not in English
  You will need to produce a subtitle file only (Closed Captioning is not required)
- Your film is mostly in English but there are a few lines (or more) of dialogue that are not in English
  You will need to produce both a Closed Captioning file and what is called a Forced Narrative Subtitle file.
  This “Forced Narrative” subtitle file is rather a new concept, so when you work with your subtitle lab (if you need suggestions for labs to work with, check out the ‘Subtitling, Closed Captioning and Transcription Services and Solutions’ section on the ResourcePlace tab on our website), make sure they understand that an English language forced narrative file (unlike Closed Captioning or regular subtitles) does not need to be manually turned on for territories where English is the main language, and in fact cannot be turned off in those Territories. Hence, they are forced on the screen. Together with the closed captioning, they make up a complete dialogue of your film, but they should not overlap, or else you’ll be in a situation where the same lines of text are appearing twice on the screen, and your film will be rejected.
TECH TIP: We recommend watcing your film through before you deliver with all subtitle and CC files. If your film is only in English and you only need to produce closed captioning, these files are pretty much gibberish. So ask the lab to ALSO provide you with a .srt subtitle file of the closed captioning (it’s an easy convert for them). Even though you won’t be submitting this file, you can watch it using, for example, VLC. Just make the filename of your .srt file the same as your .mov or .mp4 file, place it in the same folder, and the subs should automatically come on.
If your film has a forced narrative, keep track of your non-English dialogue…easy to do especially if your film only has a few lines of non-English. Then change the file extension .srt or .stl temporaily to .txt. This file can then be opened in any text application and eyeballed to ensure that no lines of foreign dialogue are misplaced. If you ask for a .srt conversion of your Closed Captioning file, you can do the same thing with this file to verify that these non-English lines are not repeated in the Closed Captioning.
Subtitles and Closed Captioning (part 2)
Closed Captioning needs to be in .scc format. Subtitles need to be in either .srt or .stl format. But .srt file do not hold placement, so if you are making a documentary, for example, you will probably want to submit .stl. Because if you have any lower-thirds in your film, lines of closed captioning or subtitled dialogue needs to be moved to the top of the screen when lower thirds are on the screen. .srt files will appear on top of the lower thirds, and your film will be rejected.
TECH TIP: Again, watch your film back with closed captioning / subtitling to make sure your lower thirds are not blocked.
Dual Mono not allowed
Make sure the audio in your feature and trailer is stereo. This does not merely mean that there is sound coming out the L & R speakers. It means that these two tracks need to be different…and not where one side gets all the dialogue and the other gets the M&E. Think of how annoying that would be if you were in a theater. L & R tracks need to be mixed properly and outputted as such.
TECH TIP: Listen to your film before you submit, or at the very least make sure your film is not dual mono…download an applcation such as Audacity, a free program, and open your masters in that program. if the sound waves are identical for both L & R, you need to go back and redo. Don’t assume your sound guy is not infallable.
720p not allowed
iTunes is no longer accepting 1280×720 films. In addition, they will not take a 1280×720 that has been up-rezed to 1920×1080. No one should be making movies in 720p and expect the world to cater to their film.

David Averbach September 16th, 2015

Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, Digital Distribution, Distribution Platforms, iTunes, Vimeo

Tags: Amazon, audio on your film file, closed captioning for film file, David Averbach, Digital Distribution, filmmaker mistakes, Google Play, HD for film file, independent film, indie film, iTunes, subtitling, The Film Collaborative, TVOD, VUDU, YouTube

Subnavigation

TFC’s Distribution Days is upon us!

All About AVOD? part 2: Is FAST getting FASTER in Europe?