The State of International Sales for Independent Films
In our continuing look at film sales, today we are featuring an interview with an international sales agent for independent films, Ariel Veneziano of Recreation Media. He has handled international sales for many films including the highest grossing documentary of its time Michael Moore’s Bowling For Columbine, the highest grossing independent film of all time Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, and America’s most watched television show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. The Film Collaborative works closely with Recreation Media for its international sales efforts.
SC: How are things different now than they were 5-10 years ago?
AV: In one word: worse. Sorry to start this off on a down note!
SC: Do you mean money-wise or just sales interest at all?
AV: I think both. It is best to acknowledge what the reality is. At the same time, there are some opportunities that have emerged, new ways of doing business that didn’t exist several years ago. It is important for filmmakers to have a reality check that there have been changes in the way viewers consume media and that has led to radical changes in the market. People go to movie theaters to see independent films much less than they did. Although global box office appears higher, this is only for a very small percentage of films. We’re talking Twilight, Iron Man, Dark Knight, James Bond. That share of the box office numbers is cannibalizing all of the other films out there.
Home entertainment revenues have been shrinking. DVD is progressively becoming marginal, and while broadcasters are multiplying, the license fees they are paying, especially for independent product, are getting smaller. While VOD and digital distribution are on the rise revenue wise, there is also an overabundance of product being made because of the sudden availability of low cost production methods.
Piracy is a threat to revenues. People still watch movies, but they don’t always pay for them. There is now a generation who sees this like going to the faucet and turning on the water, you don’t pay for every glass you fill. You pay a monthly fee and you can get a lot of water. Same with many internet subscriptions, one fee, unlimited choice. The good side to digital and particularly online distribution is the ability to, in theory at least, reach a broad audience without need for a large infrastructure. Are there ways to capitalize on that trend? Yes. Are they easy? Not necessarily, it is a very fast moving situation and even the so called experts who have done this for years, they don’t know what is going on. There’s a lot of chaos here, the wild west.
SC: If we were to look at 5 years ago, what would have been a pretty normal deal scenario for an independent film with no names, but some festival pedigree?
AV: If we’re talking about one of the major festivals, like Cannes, Venice, Berlin that you could put on the poster, those are the big 3, you could have made several hundred thousand dollars in worldwide sales. But that’s not necessarily the case anymore.
SC: Right, I was noticing out of Toronto in September that films with more than notable names were being picked up in groups for $5 million, when their budgets must be nearer to $20 million combined. Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions bought Stuart Blumberg’s “Thanks for Sharing,”(Gwyneth Paltrow, Mark Ruffalo, Tim Robbins), Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini’s “Imogene” (Kristin Wiig, Annette Benning, Matt Dillon) and Joss Whedon’s “Much Ado About Nothing”, all of them for a reported $5 million. So those films are not making their money back in advances. It used to be you could be made whole or close to it, but now that is not nearly the case.
AV: Right, it means you have to be smarter with the budgets, keep them low. Smarter with the finance plans and use soft money, something that isn’t going to be high risk for investors. What happened in the music industry is now happening to film. When is the last time you bought a CD? With technology progressing so fast, storage capacity growing, speed of transmission of data, availability of mobile devices. Few people are going to want a DVD collection, why? I can access a gazillion movies in my cloud storage. So if people aren’t really spending money on music, the revenues for albums have gone way down. Why would they continue to spend for films? If you want to know what the future holds for the film industry, look at the music industry.
And because there is so much uncertainty, buyers are trying to safeguard themselves. They are being much more particular about titles they take on and for what prices because they don’t know how well it will sell.
SC: So when you go to a market, what attracts their interest to buy anything?
AV: Bigger theatrical pictures. For foreign buyers, they want to know the film will have a wide domestic theatrical release. Some domestic distributors can promise that like Weinstein, Summit, or if you are an international sales agent who struck a deal with a studio early on to release the film with a minimum 1000 screens, buyers are receptive to that.
Cast of course makes a difference. Certain genres like action do very well. Everything related to action travels well. So, adventure, sci fi, thriller, fantasy are all cousins of the action genre and those typically do well.
SC: One genre I see a lot in indie film is the “coming of age” drama story. How well does that kind of story do?
AV: AWFUL in terms of revenue. I am talking as a businessman. As a viewer, I love coming of age dramas, but I can’t sell them. Nobody wants to buy them unless: 1) it is directed by a world class filmmaker. If it is a Woody Allen or Terrence Malick film, you’ll sell it 2) big names in the cast and when it comes to getting buyers excited about the cast level, the bar has gotten a lot higher as far as this 3) based on a best-selling novel 4) selection in a MAJOR festival. For international revenue that would be Cannes, Berlin, Venice. Sundance has an impact domestically, but internationally people don’t care. Toronto the same, it is fine for a repeat screening, but if that is your only claim to fame, not going to help you that much.
Coming of age drama is one of the worst for travel; that and comedy. Buyers just flee unless it comes with any or lots of those 4 criteria. So Terrence Malick’s Tree of Life, fits 3 of those criteria. World class director, A level cast, major festival selection. That is desirable to buyers.
SC: So you are really saying that a microbudget indie film with all of those things absent really has no chance for a buy at a foreign market?
AV: None. Absolutely zero.
SC: This is good to know, we’re tempering expectations here. This doesn’t mean there is no audience for the film. It simply means that it has no value to a buyer.
AV: It is going to bring in too little money for them that it isn’t worth investing in. But you’re right, does it mean you can’t put it on iTunes or some other online outlets on your own and get people in foreign countries to pay to see it? You can absolutely do that. But since it is such a wild-west scenario at the moment, the revenue could still be zero for you.
SC: Are you saying that there are no prospects even in broadcast for this kind of film?
AV: No prospects, but as with anything there are a few exceptions. A Lifetime movie, like a women in peril kind of film. If it was bought by Lifetime in the US, then there could be some broadcast value elsewhere. But that is a very specific kind of film, very formulaic.
SC: What about a low budget documentary? What if it was picked up by HBO in the States?
AV: Now we’re mixing types of films. Docs are a little bit different, but it depends on what they are about. If it strikes the right chord with something timely, you find the right broadcaster who is filling their schedule with a thematic type of programming and your doc fits that profile, then boom you have a deal. A small deal probably, but still a deal. A theatrical doc is the exception, docs are mostly for TV. Having it on HBO? No, it doesn’t make a difference. Not PBS either. It is more about the right subject matter, being topical.
The brands broadcast buyers respond to for narratives are Syfy Channel, Lifetime, Disney, Nickelodeon, maybe Hallmark. Again, those films are very specific and formulaic. No fancy effects, no flashbacks and weird montage, just very straightforward stories.
SC: A foreign sales agent does what? You go to markets, but what is done in between? Should I get a specialist foreign sales agent or a worldwide sales agent?
AV: Typically domestic and foreign markets are two different animals. There are some sales companies that can act as a good one stop shop, handling both within the same company and that can simplify administration. But the option to hire a dedicated domestic sales agent – also known as a producer’s rep – is a common way to go as well.
What we do as a sales agent is that we help you maximize revenue on the film from all available sources around the world. So that entails marketing, highlighting an existing campaign or creating a new one; working the press, getting a film into the right festival. Then leveraging the relationships we already have with buyers around the world. Negotiating and papering the deals. Delivering the movies. Invoicing and collecting the revenue. Monitoring how a film does in a territory and requesting (or demanding!) the revenue reports. Structuring the deal correctly so you can have some money up front and then see more money later down the road – if the film does well. It is a “technical” job and is very relationship driven.
Probably the most important aspect for a filmmaker in electing a sales agent, is working with someone you can establish a relationship of trust with. Trust can be an elusive thing sometimes. You keep hearing stories about filmmakers being ripped off by sales agents. Some films are probably not meant to be handled by a sales agent because it is just too many layers of middlemen for too little available revenue, and the filmmaker would have been better off handling it themselves for the amount of sales revenue that can be gained from it. It will be a lot of work though for the filmmakers and some people are very naïve about that, thinking ‘oh who needs a sales agent?’ and they take their film to markets or put it up for sale themselves online and at the end of the day, a lot less revenue comes in than they thought. It is a lot harder to make money than it seems…
SC: Sometimes filmmakers try to call buyers and they find their calls aren’t returned. Buyers don’t know who they are.
AV: Trust me, sometimes we have trouble getting them to return our calls too! And they do know who we are.
SC: What is the typical length of time for a sales agent agreement?
AV: There are two types of agreements. One is a straight distribution agreement where the sales agent comes on just to sell the film into territories. Another is when a sales agent comes in with a minimum guarantee, some money upfront. If they put in some money, they will be more demanding on the terms. If it is just straight distribution, the filmmaker has more leverage to negotiate it. So a typical term is 10-15 years.
SC: Why does it need to be that long?
AV: Well there are two questions here. The first is the sales agent’s engagement term. How long is the agent going to be selling the film? And the second is for how long is the agent allowed to sell the rights? How long will the contract last for each deal brokered? I might sell the film to a buyer in the first year, but the buyer might want a 20 year contract on that film especially if it is an all rights deal where they can exploit each window over a long length of time. They might spend a lot of money to release the film theatrically and make up the bulk of that money on DVD/VOD and then digital then broadcast which can then mean relicense and relicense over a long period of time. You know, when you watch TV, there are rerun movies, things that came out a long time ago. Those have been relicensed over time. So if you are going to all this effort and expense, you want to have a long period of revenue coming in on that.
If a producer and a sales agent have a good relationship, they should both want that. It is not just about selling and walking away, there is the monitoring of the sales. You may get an advance from the buyer, but then there is a revenue sharing structure that has to be enforced. A buyer might release theatrically and not make money, but then it goes into DVD and broadcast, and especially in Europe broadcast is where a lot of the money is, when that revenue is coming in, you have to make sure reporting is being done correctly. That can be many years after the fact. If a film is doing really well, you may have to check the reports or audit them to make sure you are getting all that is due. It can be complicated to do this and costly. You want your buyer to comply, but you may have to send in someone to check the records. You need to manage the revenues coming in, the agent gets commission and expenses and then the rest flows through to the filmmakers. So for us this lasts 15 years typically.
SC: 15 years to maintain the film, the sales contracts on the film?
AV: Yes.
SC: So then the question is if after a year or two, the agent hasn’t made deals in many territories. Why should they still hold the rights to my film for 15 years? If I know that I have an audience in Indonesia based on my website traffic, but it isn’t enough to satisfy a broadcaster or a distributor in that territory, I could service them directly from my website, but I can’t do that because legally I don’t own my film, the agent does. An agreement for that length of time in this case doesn’t seem to serve anyone.
AV: Well in TV sales it can take a while for a sale to come through. The decision making process is slower in TV. Also it can be about the right theme being programmed in the schedule. A film may not be a fit for this year’s schedule, but maybe for a schedule 2 years from now. If the agent has the rights to a film that fits, a sale can be made then.
But I think good practice for a sales agent is to yield to the filmmaker if they find after a reasonable amount of time that there is no real sales potential. A clause should be worked into the contract that after X amount of time, if no sales are pending and interest is limited, then the rights go back to the filmmaker or the sales agent agrees to arrange for another type of distribution (iTunes aggregation or other kind of digital VOD distribution) and any revenue would be subject to whatever commission was agreed – if the sales agent helped to get the film onto a revenue generating platform, then they should get a commission out of it.
SC: Walk me through the revenue flow. If it is just a straight distribution deal, the agent has not given the filmmaker an MG to represent the film, how does the money flow from the buyers through the sales agent to the filmmaker?
AV: Everything is up for negotiation, but here’s the typical structure. The revenue comes in from the distributor, the agent takes a commission, then the agent takes reimbursement on the expenses that have been capped and agreed, then the filmmaker gets the rest. Let’s say there is $100,000 of revenue. Commission is 20% and the agent spent $10,000 in expense. The commission is $20,000 plus the $10,000 for expenses so $70,000 goes to the filmmakers.
SC: Ok say that it isn’t $100,000 in one go. Say it is $2,000 this month and $5,000 last month and all of this revenue flows through the agent. Does that mean every time there is revenue, the agent gets 20% of it, or is this a flat 20% of all revenue?
AV: Usually reporting is on a quarterly basis in the first year or two and after that it is only twice a year. So every time there is a statement, commission is disbursed.
SC: And how do you show me expenses? How do I know what my expense was for the trailer or the one sheet design and printing or the market booth?
AV: Again different companies have different practices, but typically expenses are amortized across all of the current titles the sales agent is handling. We have costs from the markets that we split across the slate of films. We do a fair assessment of the films we are actively selling and then there are direct costs. If we hold a screening of a film in a venue during the market, 100% of that cost is going against that particular film. But a booth at Cannes for all of the active slate of films, that cost will be amortized across the slate. So everything should be documented as far as expenses. If you feel like the expenses are unfair, you should have audit rights in your agreement.
When you have that ongoing relationship with your sales agent and they are motivated to do repeat business with you, they will want to do things right. Ideally you want to work with someone you can 100% trust, but we hear every day how there are disputes in Hollywood studios, independent studios. Lots of creative accounting, people don’t always report accurately and things end in arbitration or litigation.
SC: A few years back someone on a panel said that especially in low budget filmmaking there are a lot of first time filmmakers, but not a lot of second time ones. So relationship building on either side, the agent or the filmmaker, there isn’t a lot of loyalty there. The filmmaker may never work again, the agent may not even want another film from this person, the filmmaker will choose whatever agent seems to be bringing them the best deal. So is the motivation to be loyal and honest really there?
AV: Well maybe filmmakers should have more of a career plan. Don’t think one film at a time, but have a vision for what your career will look like and plan for the relationships that will help you realize it over time. Also, films aren’t made by only one person. There is the producer, the director, the writer, the cast and sometimes cast members are also producers. There can be relationships with all of these people that benefit a trust factor being present. And then there is the carrot and the stick principle. Yes, we want to have relationships where we believe all are being honest, but we know some people are more honest with those they know than with those they don’t. You have to trust, but verify.
You can always question what doesn’t seem like a reasonable expense. You won’t go through every receipt and say ‘are you sure at that dinner you talked about my movie?’ Come on, you aren’t going to do that. But if you see some weird expenses for things you don’t remember happening, like a screening at a market, then you should question it and request backup documentation. The sales agent should be able to provide it.
SC: Lastly, what kinds of things should be included in my sales agent contract. Should there be non performance clauses, bankruptcy clauses, a limit to the years my title is held by the agent?
AV: Well, I am going to be on the other side of the negotiating table and I will want less encumbrances of course. So who am I advising here?!
SC: If we are transparent and honest people who really want what is equitable, we should be honest about this. Also what kind of things are you expecting from the filmmaker in the contract?
AV: I will want to be efficient. I want to know that they have all the deliverables ready or in a timely manner. This includes master drive or prints as physical material, but also legal documents. Chain of title, music clearances, E&O everything that is included in the delivery list. So many times attention isn’t paid to the details of this both from the physical perspective, but also the budgeting perspective. Often these materials have to be created and that costs money and a budget needs to be available for this. We might have an offer that will bring in a good amount of revenue, but if the producers can’t deliver the items required by the buyers, there is no deal.
Sometimes we take on that expense ourselves say a 35mm print might be needed, but one wasn’t made. We wait to see how interest goes at the first market and if 5 territories want to do a theatrical release, then we will take on that expense because we know it will be recouped. A 35 mm print may be optional depending on the film, but there are other things that are required. For example an M&E track so that the film can be dubbed in foreign territories.
SC: What is the worst thing people tend to forget or deliver in the wrong format?
AV: One thing that happens a lot is stalling, letting things drag and not delivering the final elements. The final music tracks are being cleared or the M&E track is being finished. Several situations where the film never really seems to be finished. The deals were struck, the buyer is getting impatient waiting for everything to be sent over. A film isn’t like red wine, it doesn’t get better with age, it doesn’t gain value, it does the opposite. The film got old and it never came out.
Also, one thing that is perpetually a disappointment: still photography. Good photography is super important to promote the film, to design into the campaign. Buyers really want good stills. On low budget films, good photography is perpetually dismissed. Make everyone’s life easier, get lots of on set shots. Not behind the scenes stuff with the crew goofing off and doing set ups. Get shots from the scenes, good shots of the cast, the atmosphere of the scene, things that we will see on screen.
SC: What would you tell someone who hasn’t yet made their film, but they are about to embark on the process. What to expect?
AV: First start with why you are motivated to do this? Making money isn’t always the prime objective for some people. They have an urge to tell a story and yeah, maybe some business person may find it genius, but it is ok if they don’t. Be very clear about that with yourself and others, that you are doing something that has only a remote chance of making money. That way, you won’t be this frustrated filmmaker who is suddenly surprised when all the odds are against you. You knew it going in. Maybe this first film is a calling card and all part of the career plan. Ultimately, if you want to make a career in this industry, you are going to have to make film that connects with paying audiences and make some commercial sense. First films can be something very striking visually or artistically, but not make much or any money. They can have an artistic integrity that isn’t necessarily attractive to a buyer, but can find a small audience. In order to capture industry attention, the films are going to have to be accessible to an audience.
I thank Ariel Veneziano for sharing his time and information with us. Remember, The Film Collaborative does handle films sales on a limited basis and we are always open to advising our members on the best course for getting their films out to market.
Sheri Candler November 20th, 2012
Posted In: Distribution, International Sales
Tags: Ariel Veneziano, Berlinale, Cannes Film Festival, domestic film distribution, independent film sales, international film distribution, international film sales, Recreation Media, sales agents, Venice Film Festival
One key point on film sales
In light of the American Film Market just wrapping up and Sundance on the horizon, we thought we would devote some time to explaining how film sales works and what the landscape is looking like for independent films at the moment. Many of you may not truly be aware of how a sales agent relationship works. Indeed, by conversations we’ve seen on forums and in social media spaces, many newer filmmakers do not understand the repercussions of signing a sales agent agreement for their films.
Typically sales agents do not act like real estate brokers, but more like intermediary distributors. What I mean is they do not facilitate a deal that a filmmaker does directly with third parties and then charge a commission that gets paid out as does a real estate broker. Typically, sales agents first license all the rights from a filmmaker (meaning they then possess all the rights, meaning the film isn’t yours to control during their agreement term) and then re-license them per territory or in a worldwide deal depending on the territory they have been assigned to sell in contractually. The agreement is between the agent and the buyer, not between the filmmaker and the buyer. Often sales agents’ terms are 20 years, or 15, 12, 10, 7, but rarely less than 7 and the more old school ones are longer. The reasoning is that they need the rights to be able to sell the rights. So for at least 7 years, the film is no longer in your possession and by the time you get control of it again, it is indeed considered an old title.
Film sales office Asian Film Market
There are some advantages to working with a sales agent of course. They will spend money traveling to markets, producing sales materials, courting buyers and they handle all delivery and oversee the distributors they’ve signed agreement with, keeping a watchful eye and monitoring accounting. Sales agents usually have better buyer contacts than most filmmakers and more leverage, and they have more market intelligence. Bear in mind that they front this money for the film (that they own for a time), but it all must be recouped from the sales revenue with sales commission before any is passed back to the filmmaker. There are also times when the delivery items (also known as deliverables in a sales agent agreement) must be completed and paid for BEFORE the agent will take it out to buyers. In some cases if this hasn’t been delivered upon signing the agreement, an agency may pay to have these items fulfilled if they find a buyer who requires them (like 35mm prints) and the deal is large enough to recoup this additional cost plus commission.
The taking rights component is an issue because these agreements last for a number of years and the filmmaker is shut out of much or all of festival distribution and the ability to conduct direct distribution efforts (internet distribution) plus all the rest. I’ve written all this before; and many seasoned filmmakers already know it, but I write it again to remind of one key thing during this AFM/film sales season: DO THE MATH.
At The Film Collaborative we do sales too, sometimes, in a very boutique fashion. We spend little at markets; we sell only certain strands of films that we have lots of experience in handling. We do NOT take rights ever and the deals are, almost always, between the BUYER and the FILMMAKER. Rare exceptions are when we are doing a bulk TV deal and even then filmmakers still have 100% approval and collect within a few days of us having collected from the broadcaster.
There’s more that can be said about the specifics of sales and samenesses v. differences between our model and the traditional one, but the point is to remind of this one key point: Oftentimes the potential deals that a traditional sales agent can do for you and what you can do for yourself or with us are the same, but the math (because of fees and expenses) will net you less.
There are times when certain types of films have a certain sales potential that may be better served by a motivated sales agent who has the cash to augment the deals and can command more and stand better to collect etc. But most of the time, for indies, the deals these days are so few and far between and for such small prices that if one does not pick a company that follows our model, one will get screwed. Sometimes, the screening fee from festival distribution is the same or more than the sales money (yes, screening fees can be negotiated!). Sometimes the benefit of DIY distribution by the filmmaker can net more than an MG on a sale. Sometimes there are no sales. Sometimes the expense recoupments due to a sales agent exceed the sales revenue. So the key is get real sales projections, back up with corroborating information, and DO THE MATH. Admittedly, this is no easy feat these days and sometimes the sales potential isn’t pretty.
Sometimes films represented by veteran agencies do the exact same deals we do, but instead of the filmmaker getting the money directly from the buyers, it passes through a sales agent who recoups expenses and higher fees such that the net is ultimately less to the filmmaker, who cannot even exploit any rights to her own film.
Before signing agreements with sales agents, ask the agent about the sales potential of your film, the one they are asking to represent (and own for a time). Ask to see the projections in writing and analyze that they really are comparable films (genre, actor names, topic, timeframe of the sale should be in the last year or two, not 5 years ago when the film world was very different). Ask about their intentions for marketing your title, beyond designing a one sheet and perhaps a new trailer. Ask how many films they are representing this year at the markets and will your title get its proper attention. Beyond the markets, will your film be promoted in any other way (publication coverage, special screenings, social media outreach, highlighted on their website and in their weekly email blasts)? Think if it will be worth it to relinquish all rights to your film for at least 7 years. Be in reality about the real sales potential of your film, do the math, and make your decisions accordingly.
Orly Ravid November 13th, 2012
Posted In: Distribution, International Sales
Tags: American Film Market, film buyers, film distribution, film distributors, film markets, film sales, film sales agent, film sales agreements, Sundance Film Festival
The harsh realities of becoming a *responsible* filmmaker
by Orly Ravid
It is difficult to definitively explain what The Film Collaborative (TFC) does in a few sentences. Often, when asked for a company bio for a speaking engagement, we are asked to sum up in a few words, but here is the thing…we do different things for different films and that is what makes this non profit company devoted to independent film distribution different. We are a membership organization and we offer a menu of services that are separately available. For our members, we are largely an educational and informational organization. We will work with any film/filmmaker to provide consultation and educational resources which are included in our membership fees.
We can provide services such as: worldwide festival distribution, worldwide sales, domestic sales, worldwide direct digital, domestic theatrical, limited domestic educational distribution, grassroots / social network marketing services, and contract negotiation services. These are all subject to additional fees so the filmmaker must have significant budget to allow for the labor and expenses incurred and our acceptance depends on the workload currently undertaken by the company.
We also serve in a sales agent capacity with SOME films. Due to this dual nature (educational and service oriented), we are very discerning about the films we take on in this capacity. We can work on any aspect of distribution, but with a strong emphasis on direct distribution being part of your overall distribution strategy. We can connect you with service providers/buyers we think are right for your film, and ones we trust and recommend, but WE NEVER OWN YOUR RIGHTS and filmmakers can cancel the service at any time. This clearly sets us apart from other sales agents and can be confusing to those who are accustomed to typical sales agent arrangements. The deals we make are almost always between the buyer and the filmmaker. The only exception to this are bulk deals whereby doing the deals individually is just tortuous for all involved. We are very boutique in our sales agent offerings, not wanting to disappoint or take on more than we can handle. If we don’t think a title is suited to our strengths and our mission to offer quality films of artistic merit with strong distribution potential, then we don’t take them on for sales representation. Which brings us to merit…
Not all films will have distribution potential, not all films are good, not all films have an audience, or not a significant one. There, we said it! Time and again we see filmmakers willingly, enthusiastically going into debt, either raising money from investors or credit cards and coming to us for help in getting their creations out into the world. Sometimes those creations just won’t have a life out there and no matter what is spent in time or money, a significant audience won’t be found. We drill down into every member’s film in order to give the best assessment, but there are times when the prognosis is not favorable to the kind of success they are seeking.
For members’ films, we remove our personal tastes from the equation and try our best to determine WHO in the world would be enthusiastic for the film and how many such folks are out there? And where are they? And can they be reached given the resources available? When you made the film, were you thinking of an audience? When you came to us expecting the film to: get TV sales, international sales, a nice Netflix fee, a theatrical release, a theatrical even after you did a DIY DVD and iTunes release, were you basing that on another film that is similar? Do you understand the decision making process involved in the buying of films for release? Was any research at all conducted BEFORE the production started? With the amount of information on our site and thousands of others online, there is no longer an excuse for not knowing the answers to these questions well before a production starts.
I am starting to want to be the tough love nursemaid and say we don’t want your babies to be orphans. Filmmakers now have to educate themselves a bit before conception and well before giving birth so they will be able to cover all the rearing their film baby is going to need to claw its way through the mobs of other film babies, their TV siblings, Webcontent cousins, and the rest of their multimedia distraction family. As with conceiving real babies, it is all fun and games until the reality of raising a child sets in. You need to be fully prepared for the long haul.
We have information, we keep up with the current shifting sands of distribution, we receive opportunities because we represent quality films, we have contacts, years of expertise, we’re friendly, we’re not gonna f*ck you over, but we cannot save every film from oblivion nor can we convert every film into a success however you define it. So much of that has to start with you, being clear and honest with yourself, before you say “action”.
photo credit: Adam Foster | Codefor
Orly Ravid August 8th, 2012
Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, International Sales, Marketing
Tags: artistic merit, consultation, Digital Distribution, direct distribution, educational resources, festival distribution, film distribution, film sales, independent film, non profit, sales agent, TFC
Final wrap up of Sundance deals
This piece was researched, compiled and written by TFC associate Bryan Glick.
Back in March we looked at the films that were bought out of Sundance and since then the deals have kept coming, including some from major players like Sony Pictures Classics (SPC) and IFC.
Among the companies making fresh acquisitions, Tribeca Films nabbed North American rights to two US Dramatic competition entries, “The Comedy” and “For Ellen”. In fact every film in the US Dramatic Competition now has a US Distributor. SPC secured worldwide rights to “Smashed” for $1,000,000 and Sony Worldwide opened their eyes to US Rights and Canada Ancillary for “The First Time”. Music Box bought “Keep The Lights On” for North America, in what is certainly a change of pace from their typical fare. Meanwhile “Filly Brown” became the fourth film to get bought by Indomina who is making it clear that they are presence in the indie world. They have worldwide rights for the film. The Late Adam Yauch’s Oscilloscope got the North American rights to the opening night film “Hello I Must Be Going” and IFC showed they could acquire the entire festival if they wanted to by adding North American rights for “Save the Date” to their packed slate, and finally Wrekin Hill took a chance on “The End of Love” for which they now hold North American rights.
On the World Dramatic side “Teddy Bear” which won the directing prize became only the second film to get US Distribution from this competition section. While in the World Documentary section “China Heavyweight” was acquired for the US by premiere documentary distributor Zeitgeist.
Oscilloscope embraced their music roots and will do a special release for “Shut Up and Play The Hits” in North America, while IFC Midnight had to snatch up “Grabbers” for North America, leaving “John Dies at the End” as the only Midnight film to not sell this year. In the Next section, IFC got North American rights to yet another film with the audience award winner “Sleepwalk With Me” and Phase 4 got into the game with US and Canadian rights to “That’s What She Said”. This brings the total sale of Next films to five, with another four still looking for a buyer. While that might seem bleak, this is better than its first two years and slowly this section is showing that it can play with the big dogs in the US Dramatic Competition Section.
In the premiere section Strand is in for the long haul with US Rights for “California Solo” and “Red Hook Summer” is being distributed by Spike Lee’s own company in partnership with Variance and Image Entertainment. Only “Price Check” has yet to find a distributor.
In the US Documentary section, Film Arcarde & Lionsgate got a slam dunk with North American rights to “The Other Dream Team”, which reportedly sold for mid six figures Oscilloscope secured US, non-TV rights to “Chasing Ice” and Bravo got in on the action with “The Queen of Versailles”. Finally, “Detropia” just started a kickstarter campaign to raise funds for a DIY release. Meanwhile , the Doc Premiere film “Under African Skies” saw a small theatrical run courtesy of A&E (who will also be premiering it on TV) and was bought by Snag Films for all digital platforms.
FINAL THOUGHTS. This year was yet again dominated by the power of the IFC brand. IFC/IFC Midnight acquired a whopping 8 films and their sister division Sundance Selects got 2! Magnolia/Magnet was a not even close second with 6 films. Oscilloscope, Indomina, and SPC all showed prominence with four films a piece. Other companies acquiring multiple films include Music Box, Zeitgeist, Tribeca Films, The Weinstein Company, Kino Lorber, and Fox Searchlight. A full list of sales is viewable below.
Box office grosses are current as of June 10th.
| Film | Company | Deal Amount | Terrtitories | Sales Company | Box Office/ |
| Release Date | |||||
| 2 Days in New York | Magnolia | N/A | North America | CAA | August 10th |
| 28 Hotel Rooms | Oscilloscope | N/A | US | Preferred Content | |
| 5 Broken Cameras | Kino Lorber | N/A | US | CAT&Docs | $22,787 |
| About Face | HBO Doc | N/A | TV | Pre-Fest | July 30th |
| Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry | Sundance Selects | N/A | North America | Cinetic Media, Victoria Cook | July 27th |
| Arbitrage | Roadside | Over $3,000,000 | North America | WME | |
| Bachelorette | TWC | Over $2,000,000 | North America | CAA | |
| Beasts of the Southern Wild | Fox Searchlight | Almost $1,000,000 | US | WME | June 27th |
| Black Rock | LD | Over $1,000,000 | North America | Submarine | |
| California Solo | Strand | N/A | US | Visit Films | |
| Celeste and Jesse Forever | SPC | Almost $2,000,000 | North And Latin America, Eastern Europe | UTA | August 3rd |
| Chasing Ice | Oscilloscope | N/A | US (Non TV) | Submarine | |
| Chasing Ice | National Geographic | N/A | TV | Submarine | |
| China Heavyweight | Zeitgeist | N/A | US | EyeSteelFilms | July 6th |
| Compliance | Magnolia | N/A | North America | Cinetic | June 20th |
| Detropia | DIY | ||||
| Escape Fire | Roadside | N/A | US | CAA | October 5th |
| Ethel | HBO Doc | N/A | TV | Pre-Fest | |
| Excision | Anchor Bay | N/A | North America | Preferred Content | |
| Filly Brown | Indomina | N/A | Worldwide | WME | |
| For a Good Time Call | Focus | $3,000,000 | Worldwide | Cinetic | August 31st |
| For Ellen | Tribeca | N/A | North America | CAA | Sept 5th |
| GOATS | Image | Almsot $1,000,000 | US | WME and Cinetic Media | |
| Grabbers | IFC Midnight | N/A | North & Latin America | Gersh | |
| Hello, I Must Be Going | Oscilloscope | N/A | North America | WME | |
| How To Survive a Plague | Sundance Selects | High Six Figures | North America | Submarine | September 21st |
| Indie Game: The Movie | HBO And Scott Rudin | N/A | TV | Film Sales Company | B.O. Gross not |
| (Remake Rights) | Reported | ||||
| Keep the Lights On | Music Box | N/A | North America | Preferred Content | |
| Lay the Favorite | TWC | Over $2,000,000 | US | CAA | |
| Liberal Arts | IFC | Over $1,000,000 | North America | Gersh | |
| Luv | Indomina/BET | Over $1,000,000 | North America/TV | ICM/Cinetic | |
| Marina Abramovic | HBO Doc | TV | Pre-Fest | July 2nd | |
| Marina Abramovic | Music Box | N/A | US | Submarine | June 13th |
| Me @ The Zoo | HBO Doc | Mid Six Figures | TV | Submarine | June 25th |
| Middle of Nowhere | Participant and AAFFRM | Mid Six Figures | US | Paradigm | |
| Mosquita Y Mari | Wolfe | Low Six Figures | North America | The Film Collaborative | August 3rd |
| Nobody Walks | Magnolia | Mid-high Six Figures | North America | Submarine | |
| Payback | Zeitgeist | N/A | US | N/A | $12,962 |
| Predisposed | IFC | N/A | North America | ICM and UTA | August 17th |
| Putin’s Kiss | Kino Lorber | N/A | North America | N/A | $3,872 |
| Red Hook Summer | DIY/Variance/Image | N/A | North America | N/A | |
| Red Lights | Millennium Entertainment | Under $4,000,000 | US | UTA | July 13th |
| Robot & Frank | Sony & Samuel Goldwyn | Over $2,000,000 | North America and | ICM, CAA | |
| select territories | |||||
| Room 237 | IFC Midnight | N/A | North America | Betsy Rodgers | |
| Safety Not Guaranteed | Film District | Over $1,000,000 | US | ICM | $97,762 |
| Save the Date | IFC | N/A | North America | CAA | |
| Searching for Sugar Man | SPC | Mid Six Figures | North America | Submarine | July 27th |
| Shadow Dancer | ATO | $1,000,000 | North America | CAA | |
| Shut Up and Play the Hits | Oscilloscope | N/A | North America | WME | |
| Simon Killer | IFC Films | N/A | North America | UTA, Caa | |
| Sleepwalk With Me | IFC | N/A | North America | UTA | August 24th |
| Smashed | SPC | $1,000,000 | Worldwide | UTA and CAA | |
| Something From Nothing: The Art of Rap | Indomina | Over $1,000,000 | Worldwide | UTA | |
| Teddy Bear | Film Movement | N/A | North America | Visit Films | August 22nd |
| That’s what she said | Phase 4 | N/A | US and Canada | Submarine | |
| The Comedy | Tribeca | N/A | North America | Submarine | |
| The D Word | HBO Doc | N/A | TV | Pre-Fest | |
| The End Of Love | Wreckin Hill | N/A | North America | Preferred Content | |
| The First Time | Sony Worldwide | N/A | US/Canada Ancillary | N/A | |
| The Imposter | Indomina | N/A | North America | A&E Films | July 13th |
| The Invisble War | Cinedigm and New Video | N/A | North America | The Film Collaborative | June 22nd |
| The Other Dream Team | Film Arcade & Lionsgate | Mid Six Figures | North America | WME | |
| The Pact | IFC Midnight | High Six Figures | North America | Preferred Content | |
| The Queen of Versailles | Bravo | N/A | TV | Submarine | 2013 |
| The Queen of Versailles | Magnolia | Mid Six Figures | North America | Submarine | July 20th |
| The Surrogate | Fox Searchlight | $6,000,000 + | Worldwide | CAA | |
| $4,000,00 P&A | |||||
| The Words | CBS | $2,000,000 | US | CAA | September 7th |
| Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie | Magnet | N/A | World | Pre Fest | $201,406 |
| Under African Skies | A&E Films | N/A | TV/Theatrical | A&E Films | |
| Under African Skies | Snag Films | N/A | Exclusive Digital | A&E Films | |
| V/H/S | Magnolia (magnet) | Over $1,000,000 | North America | WME | |
| West of Memphis | SPC | N/A | Worldwide | Peter Jackson and Ken Kamins | |
| Wish You Were Here | Entertainment One | N/A | North America | LevelK | |
Orly Ravid June 13th, 2012
Posted In: Distribution, Film Festivals, International Sales
Tags: acquisition prices, American independent film, box office statistics, distribution, film distribution, Film Festivals, independent film, Sundance
Lead up to Cannes: Digital Distribution Beyond the Old World
This post was originally published on the Sundance Artists Services blog on April 23, 2012. This is an interview between Rights Stuff’s Wendy Bernfeld and The Film Collaborative’s Orly Ravid on the state of digital in Europe
In the past, many new media and VOD platforms – whether based on pay-per-transaction (TVOD), subscription (SVOD), free to user/ad supported (ADVOD) or download to own (DTO) — came and went, to the disillusionment of those brave souls trying to explore and develop the new sector and audiences.
Some filmmakers, sales agents, distributors who dared to license were wonderfully pleased with surprisingly good results for particular films (and not always the same ones that were mainstream successes in traditional media), but on balance, let’s face it, most were underwhelmed with the lackluster performance or transience of the various sites, and eventually became jaded about the whole sector. But it’s no longer a viable option just to sit back.
Over the past 18 months particularly the digital/VOD sector (including internationally) has finally begun paying off well for filmmakers, producers, distributors, and sales agents… at least for those who are willing to take the time to navigate (alone or partnered with others) the complexities of the sector, play with creative ”windowing’’ while balancing opportunities from traditional media, and accept initially more modest revenues from multiple smaller deals across various platforms and regions (yielding cumulative revenues in a largely non exclusive sector).
In addition to traditional media deals and VOD deal potential with IPTV, telecom, and cable offerings, and larger American sites (e.g. Hulu, YouTube, Netflix, iTunes), your film may well find interested audiences and homes on EU/international platforms…even if not picked up in the USA.
HOW IS INTERNATIONAL DIGITAL DIFFERENT FROM THAT IN THE USA?
The EU (beyond UK) deals with multiple languages, different tastes and appetites, different windows (vs consistent release patterns/dates per country), different platforms to navigate and balance against multiple different traditional media buyers, and, to be honest in general more work for smaller potential revenues from each deal/window.
But on the plus side, films can find homes overseas in many markets and windows, even if not ending up in the mainstream or major US/UK platforms.
The UK is at the moment probably the more stable and lucrative for English (the VOD market is already very competitive, with large platforms like Netflix, Lovefilm, BSkyB, FilmFlex, iTunes, and Blinkbox) but as soon as you ripple out to EU, digital distribution will take more work and art and generate relatively less money, especially if your film is only in original English language, and not already exposed in terms of promo/PR (theatrical, DVD release in the region etc.). However, there is indeed a growing appetite by now for art house, festival, docs, quality indie films, and foreign language films, if well curated, e.g. around festivals/brands/themes rather than as one-offs.
WHO’S OUT THERE in EU and what are some of the key territories where digital is meaningful?
Digital is immediately more meaningful in the UK, France, the Nordic region, and in Benelux, where there are already pc/mobile and tech-savvy customers and a willingness to view films in English with subtitles (vs. the dubbed regions of Germany, Spain, Italy etc., where one has to invest more to get the languages to cross over).
Although publications often refer to figures noting several hundreds of VOD platforms in Europe, in my view there are only probably 100 or so that are worth talking about when discussing licensing—half of which the main revenue generators, and another half of which are still potentially significant buyers(depending on the film of course)
In Europe, as in America, transactional VOD (pay per view) platforms are more established – some regional (per country), and others multi region (e.g. Acetrax, UPC/Chello, Headweb, iTunes, Playstation Network Live, Voddler, Xbox Live). Outside of the UK, one obviously enhances possibilities if addressing customers in their own languages and tailoring content to local preferences such film classification, advertising, and general consumer and cultural tastes.
iTunes has only recently (in autumn 2011) begun to expand its footprint into Europe, including in the following EU countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Non-English stores include: Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland, and Portugal. They also just recently launched in Brazil / Latin America as well.
NETFLIX, Amazon (via Lovefilm), and Hulu are expanding their international footprint too. Netflix, for example, recently launched in UK/Eire, and is anticipated to roll into other regions such as Spain thereafter, and has already extended its occasionally original production commissioning activities to EU (e.g. Denmark – Lillyhammer deal, and more recently France (Gaumont etc) – Hemlock Grove series funding ). Lovefilm already has a presence beyond the UK (in Germany and Nordic), and is anticipated to expand regions. Hulu has not yet launched in EU but did launch already in Japan. As part of its competition rampup (in the US against Netflix in the SVOD market, it has also began commissioning original programming, (Day in the Life – Morgan Spurlock, for example, which was just picked up by Fremantle for distribution thereafter)….and also continues seeking special films or shows to do stunts around. We understand that they are trying to acquire more Spanish rights for the US…an important strategic move for other US players trying to expand their footprint in EU as well. Meanwhile in early 2012 the UK became a hotbed of activity for SVOD, with deals that would formerly have been nonexclusive (with e.g. Netflix, Lovefilm) being now struck on a lucrative exclusive basis, following the example of the competitive SVOD vs. Pay TV market in the US.
So what are the other key EU platforms? Trends?
Various international platforms are now becoming increasingly interested in licensing more art house, niche and festival films–not just mainstream titles. It is expected that some of the larger brand sites this year (e.g. those in UK like Netflix, Lovefilm, etc.) will expand the indie/art house and festival category further, and also be open to foreign language films (dubbed or subtitled as applicable per country audience as above). Most deals for art house/fest films, where not locally versioned or released in theatres or DVD, are on a non exclusive rev share basis, and in some cases where there is particular acclaim or cast, it can be coupled with a modest upfront, while if on an SVOD basis, flat fee deals apply (similar to non-exclusive Pay TV licensing deal parameters).
But in countries where the Pay TV incumbent is competing against a new web player, such as a traditional Pay TV player “vs.” SVOD (like Netflix “vs.” HBO in the US, or Lovefilm/Amazon “vs.” BSkyB in UK), as above, the fees can be more lucrative, in the form of true flat license fees in the Pay TV range. – whether on exclusive or non exclusive basis, and thus matching or exceeding the normal price ranges before the competition. As well, when competition heats up over one category of title, it’s also not unusual to have the competitors round out, extend, or diversify their consumer offer and move into other genres, to try to distinguish themselves from the competition. This is happening in more and more countries– for example the Netherlands, where HBO /Ziggo just launched in February and the local incumbent, Film1, responded by adding a branded art house/indie thematic channel (Sundance Channel).
Key note: Deals are generally non-exclusive and thus if carefully staggered, one can license the film sequentially through various windows (TVOD, SVOD, AVOD, and if applicable, DTO) and in multiple regions.
An example: one can first license a current film for transactional VOD (TVOD) on a rev share basis to cable and telecom VOD platforms (like France Telecom/Orange, UPC, etc) as well as (simultaneously) web based players (e.g. iTunes), then to subscription -based windows (premium Pay TV (e.g. HBO, Viasat) and their corresponding “TV Everywhere” offerings, thematic Pay TV, and/or standalone SVOD services . Thereafter, the film can move to other ad-supported services (free to consumer, web based, e.g. YouTube AVOD). This pattern can apply in multiple countries.
As mentioned above, there are hundreds of local European platforms —both standalone web-based services and mainstream and/or local telecom and Cable VOD platforms that have online offerings of their own. VIASAT, for example, was historically a premium pay service, but now offers not only conventional Pay TV and ”TV Everywhere” but also standalone thematic offerings to non-subscribers (SVOD to PC). Similarly, BSkyB just announced the upcoming launch of NOW TV – also aimed at non- subscribers (“Cord Nevers, and/or Cord Cutters”) – a thematic SVOD/low pay offering of films.
Opportunities will only increase in 2012 and 2013 as more from USA players, sites, and OTT box offerings beyond Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon gradually cross over to EU/international markets particularly if the new services don’t limit themselves to mainstream offerings and tastes.
Getting to the platform: As in the United States, some of the larger platforms (such as LOVEFILM, BlinkBox, Netflix, itunes) only take larger packages of films with a minimum volume, and are unwilling to deal direct with producers and distributors for “one off” deals. Until recently, most of the larger sites also focused mainly on mainstream films. In general, these services steer filmmakers towards conventional distributors, or aggregators/digital distributors like Movie Partnership (UK); but sometimes will accept dealings direct for certain films, or will go via an agent working on a flat fee basis (like Rights Stuff / Film Collaborative). In the latter scenario, the film IP remains in the filmmaker’s/distributor’s name, the money from deals flows to them directly and they get access and paid advice through third party consultants/agents/advisors.
Up until now, having had a DVD and/or local theatrical release was quite important for enhancing deals. But increasingly now online sites are willing to handle more innovative windows, e.g. premiering films online, or Day & Date with other windows (or shortly thereafter). Lesser-known or library (catalog) films can usually find a home on a non- exclusive and on ad-supported (AVOD) basis, but more current films usually start with transactional (TVOD) basis and/or subscription platforms (SVOD)… If filmmakers have titles already encoded to the expensive iTunes spec, this can be helpful in wider distribution, but it’s not essential; many digital platforms are now willing to take delivery of indie or art house films even via DVD or a hard drive/ digital master.
In terms of deal models, some aggregators (middlemen) take larger %s but then take care of all encoding and delivery fulfillment, while others who are more in an advisory or agent role take a lower share for deal making and platform access but leave you to arrange the encoding separately. In some countries (e.g. Brazil), platforms may not take English versions unless local subtitles or dubs are available, and work with distributors who create versions where necessary. These distributors co-curate packages with filmmakers based on experience of what “moves” best in the region so as not to invest in encoding or language versioning for films that may not generate enough revenue to justify it…
A side note regarding subtitling, by the way: Film Collaborative is looking into software that helps facilitate dubbing in the same voice as the actor/speaker, but meanwhile in any case, subtitling for digital is getting less and less expensive and can be done via relatively inexpensive software or labs. If one has shown a film at a film festival in another country and plans to then distribute the film there, we’d recommend you ask the fest for access to the subtitles (if cleared for other distribution). Traditionally, Nordic, Benelux, and some other regions are fine with and prefer subtitles, while others (such as Germany, Spain, and Italy) require dubbing. However, in the higher-educated arthouse/filmfest world, one can often get away with just subtitled versions even in the dubbing countries.
As indicated above, for better platform access, one may want to pick or join with new media /digital distribution specialists – particularly if your traditional sales agent or distributor, strong in conventional media (theatrical, video etc.) is however not active or savvy in the VOD landscape above (platforms, deal terms, contacts etc). Otherwise it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy that you then ”don’t make money in digital’’. It’s a balancing act of cost vs. services, and a lot of work in international!
And filmmakers, whatever you choose to do with respect to your digital distribution, do not forget that one can also reach the whole wide world via one’s own website(s) and social networking pages by utilizing DIY digital distribution services (for more on this topic please refer to numerous past blog posts about digital distribution and DIY platforms and services at www.TheFilmCollaborative.org/blog and/or the Resource Place at www.TheFilmCollaborative.org/ResourcePlace).
As for piracy: in various cases filmmakers can tap into or derive indirect benefit from these online communities. See for e.g. Sheri Candler’s case studies in www.SellingYourFilm.com, Some filmmakers partner with Bit Torrent, Pirate Bay etc to launch their films online, tapping into the audiences already there (e.g. Nasty Old People, The Tunnel, Yes Men Fix the World).
LET’S TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL FUTURE TRENDS:
Diversification, Cross Platform/Transmedia: We believe 2012 will see continued consolidation of platforms and fuller diversification within the genres offered. Also as above, some key platforms (such as Hulu, Netflix, Yahoo, Endemol/AOL, Nokia, Canal+, Orange, ARTE, Channel4, ) are now also selectively commissioning transmedia and/or branded film opportunities (YouTube has not begun funding outside US yet). New funds and educational bodies (including MEDIA, Power to the Pixel) are increasing the emphasis on digital as a 360 proposition from inception of the film production process.
Multi-Layered Business Models: Platforms’ business models are also starting to become more multi-layered to handle different genres, consumer price points, and windows. For example, AVOD platforms such as YOUTUBE and SVOD platforms such as Lovefilm are now adding premium transactional VOD (TVOD) in order to handle current films. And as above, SVOD players are expanding their offerings beyond just library titles, beginning to buy newer and newer films in order to compete against premium PAY TV. This trend is continuing in the newer launching countries, e.g. Holland and Brazil where new PAY TV and localized SVOD and AVOD entrants have launched (e.g. YouTube regional sites). YouTube is also commissioning Made for Web content (MFW), although first in English language countries.
Festivals: Some European festivals have also recently started offering select titles on a TVOD basis. Rights Stuff recently worked with IDFA.tv to put around 100 films online—some on an AVOD basis and some on a TVOD basis—and in future more will follow. Certain other festivals (such as IFFR) have also begun to follow the US festival path of offering limited TVOD around or during the festival. This can open many doors for filmmakers, but also requires careful juggling and balancing when figuring out distribution patterns for conventional vs. online and new media….the balancing act is always key.
Traditional Players add VOD as well: As to the more traditional PAY TV players, last year after EPIX began licensing international festival documentaries it then turned its focus more to co-productions instead of acquisitions. And over 2011/12,As in the US, many traditional PAY TV platforms are going cross-platform and on multiple devices (a la “TV EVERYWHERE”, and similarly the nonlinear online channels are often seeking multiple device rights and/or at least have an App). Thus balancing traditional PAY TV sale vs. digital media requires more attention in rights grants and windows, but offers more opportunity correspondingly. In terms of trends, it still seems like the bigger funds and platforms are still more focused on more mainstream content, however as above this is starting to expand in EU to a wider net of content and genres.
REGIONAL EXAMPLES: VOD LICENSING PLAYERS AND WINDOWS in EU:
For bigger indie titles and mainstream ones, there are usually about 5-8 or so VOD outlets that one can target per country. Most of these will buy TVOD rights and sometimes also SVOD and/or AVOD. Platforms include television-related services (IPTV, Telecom/Cable companies, etc), as well as online and/or mobile sites, OTT box offerings, and consumer electronic (e.g. connected TV) portals.
For e.g. in Holland, a film or TV show can have various TVOD deals, not only with MSO like KPN, Tele2, Ziggo, and UPC, but also with web based services like Cinemalink.nl (for art house), iTunes, and the newly launched service from theatrical distributor Pathé (a Rights Stuff client), pathethuis.nl a bold move by a traditional theatrical exhibitor to also launch and embrace TVOD for a fuller offer to its film-loving audience base.
That would then be then followed by Premium PAY TV and/or SVOD sales (e.g. Film1, Ziggo/HBO, Ximon, Mubi.com), then AVOD (YouTube, IDFA.tv) with various competing players per region. The same film can also attract interest of foreign platforms not yet launched in the region but scaling up behind scenes, poised to launch there (e.g. those seeking to next move after UK into, say, Spain or other Benelux regions/Nordic). And this is on top of the broadcaster based proprietary VOD services (e.g. RTLXL and Veamer (from SBS and public TV catchup sites.
There are also various local equivalents of genre sits like Fandor or IndieFlix in certain EU regions. MUBI (www.Mubi.com) (co-owned by the rights holder to one of the most expansive libraries of art house cinema, Celluloid Dreams) is technically available everywhere, and is sometimes syndicated as an SVOD channel to telecom platforms (as in the case with Belgacom in Belgium). It is also on Sony Playstation. Last we checked, 60% of its audience was the US and most of the rest in Europe. Revenues from it for our films (TFC) have been small to-date, low 3-figures but it’s a good pedigree platform and perhaps revenues will increase.
A few others in EU include e.g. Orange, Canal Plus, (France and, multi region), Telenet, Belgacom, (in Belgium), SF Anytime, Voddler Film2home, Headweb , Viasat etc in Nordic /other regions), Telefonica, … Maxdome (Germany), Sony-related Qriocity, Daily Motion (many countries in EU), Movieeurope, Zattoo. Sales agent Wild Bunch has also recently launched a platform service called FilmoTV.
And as an aside, in Brazil/Latin America, the market has been heating up intensely in late 2011/12, with various TVOD and IPTV platform launches players, as well as competitive new PAY TV and SVOD services (eg Netflix, Netmovies, Terra) springing up or extending VOD. NewPAY TV laws (from fall 2011) are resulting in more potential competition, which is good news for filmmakers seeking new audiences over there. Our recommended approach to filmmakers seeking deals in this region is to partner locally, e.g. with ELO Distribution, with whom we work traditional and non-traditional (new media) players.
These are just a few categorical examples…there are plenty more buyers and platforms emerging internationally, including consumer electronics manufacturers (such as Samsung and tablet and connected TV manufacturers in EU and internationally who are getting into the game either on the licensing front or occasionally even funding/commissioning Transmedia or mfw (Made for Web). However, these usually license fuller sites (like a Lovefilm or Snagfilms) and not individual one –off titles.
Overall, there are a lot of small markets and platforms, and all this takes a lot of work, but if one has built community around a film and awareness then the effort may pay off and add up to a nice revenue stream. Once the first deals are in place with platforms (deal structures, relationships, contacts, contracts) it’s easier to build on that and add new films to the deals with just short amendments or riders, so the effort at the front end makes years of future dealings run smoother.
TRENDS RE: OTHER GENRES:
Aside from art house, festival indie films, and docs, one area that we expect to see more SVOD licensing around is kids’ films. Various smaller sites also have a strong appetite for gay/lesbian, martial arts, and horror programming, graphic novels, and made for web/cross platform/Transmedia original productions…but one has to be selective. As to documentaries, the combination of a large number of doc sites in the EU with the heavy exposure of docs on public and conventional TV in EU means docs can be relatively harder to monetize here, unless well curated and packaged, for e.g. under a larger brand/festival, like IDFA.
WINDOWING:
Typically films follow the sequential windowing described above when moving through the Transactional, Sell Through, Subscription, and ADVOD windows. But for certain films it it can be clever and compelling to have windows intentionally reversed or out of sequence. For example, premiering a film ONLINE or day-and-date with another cross-promoted window ahead of theatrical, and heavily emphasizing social media marketing can allow producers to build (and engage with) the audience before the film is even out. The key is to know your audience and try to tailor the marketing and distribution patterns accordingly…producers can be more active these days to heighten the chances of film success.
More and more platforms are open to this REVERSE WINDOWING (which began successfully in the US, e.g. with Lars von Trier’s Melancholia), . For example, in Holland, the film Claustrophobia launched online first and its success via social networking ultimately brought it a theatrical deal. In another case, Submarine NL’s film ‘’Molotov Alva’’ (a second life documentary released online virally first) later secured a HBO sale on premium pay tv, and in another film we worked with (the documentary Surfing and Sharks), intensive social network/audience engagement before and during the film’s festival exhibitions helped not only to enhance the potential audience for the film ahead of commercial released, but also to attract wider sponsor support. Ultimately, the visible online appetite for the film (including the number of Twitter and Facebook followers amassed in a very short time) helped result in a stronger all-rights distribution deal as well.
There are various new platforms focused on these models that are launching and expanding reach in EU– e.g. EU1 (The Makers Channel), which just launched in the Netherlands and will soon expand to other EU regions. One part of the site is business-to-business (geared towards talent, directors, actors, producers, etc.) providing for online pitches and related crowd sourcing and crowd funding (like Kickstarter). The other component is business to consumer, and allows exhibition of works online, on a rev share VOD basis… which will be coupled for the first time with TVOD exhibitions on UPC/Chello/Ziggo (the Cable TV VOD platform partners) thus giving much wider audience reach than conventional web VOD to PC. In some cases films can also combine a theatrical (conventional or event theatrical local) release for the films “day and date” with or in staggered creative windows. We are working with two English film cases in NL already, and as this site expands to other regions and to wider English crossover, this will open up many more opportunities (in some ways similar to what you see already in the USA on Tribeca/Sundance with exhibitions on cable households (TVOD).
SHOW ME THE MONEY:
Even where indie features have no theatrical or DVD release, if there is some cast and acclaim from festivals, and the film is new/current, TVOD is possible . This is usually on a rev share basis (with %s ranging from 50-50 to 70-30, with various deductions to negotiate). In SVOD/PAY TV, flat fees are normally paid instead of rev share, usually, along lines of comparable non-exclusive PAY TV license fees for indies. For example, in medium sized, non-English language EU countries, we’ve seen SVOD flat fee prices range from 5K-50K per title where it’s been theatrically or DVD released, etc, while with less exposure or more niche, sometimes the flat fees can be lower and more aligned with AVOD. In AVOD, deals are usually rev-share, (50-50 to 70-30) with sometimes a small upfront fee. In a medium-sized EU region, MG’s (Minimum Guarantees), when given at all for indie film, can range from a few hundred dollars (plus rev share) to 1-2K for higher end material. The very largest platforms may get away with no upfront fees at all due to their scale and reach, but smaller EU sites may well, depending on the film, offer something modest. When you do multiple nonexclusive deals, these can add up and help defray some costs of versioning, digitization, deliveries, etc.
As to revenues generated from VOD once the license is done: again it is platform and film specific, and one cannot generalize. We’ve seen certain cases where niche foreign language art house films yielded 40K in 2 months of non-exclusive TVOD revenues across a few platforms, , while other titles from the same distributor yielded only 1-2K in the same deals/time period. Things are similar with SVOD – fees can range in one small non-English EU country from 5k to 40k for a single SVOD window license fee (non exclusive) – so the key is still in our view still to engage in a reasonable number of deals in each country across various windows, platforms and business models.
IN SUM: SOME TIPS FOR GOOD RESULTS IN DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION:
- We strongly advise building audience for the film before release, even while the film is still being made. Engage in social media marketing around the themes of your film and the cast: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube (promos) etc. This not only enhances the audience and reach of your film, when it is released, but potentially your distribution and/or digital deal making as well.
- Once a deal is done and even after the film is sold, it still helps for the producer or distributor to take an active role in social media marketing, e.g. to direct attention (via social media etc.) to scheduled exhibitions of the films on various platforms licensed. Many platforms in EU are still showing viewers EPG’s with clumsy alphabetical “listings’’(as opposed to the type of creative Netflix/Lovefilm recommendation engines and suggestions), so helping viewers find the film will in turn increase returns.
- As for digital deals: We’d also recommend that individual producers who cannot afford tailored individual advice consider combining forces via producer groups to collectively fund some serious upfront advice – help each other curate more attractive packages of their better material, so easier to sell on to platforms directly or indirectly – and grouped in many different ways (theme, genre, category, audience etc.).
- If necessary, try to have “split rights’’ deals. If the person to whom you are entrusting the film in an “all rights” deal is less strong in digital and likely to “sit on” new media rights, you can explore splitting these rights /sharing them non exclusively with the distributor and another specialized digital distributor, case by case. Rights Stuff has often done this working with sales agents and distributors and producers directly to maximize digital distribution.
- Work with festivals (both traditional and online), who can play an increasing role in EU as they cross over to the digital space and VOD offerings. But be careful about the scope and duration of rights granted vs. other traditional and digital media, to maximize potential in all areas.
- Don’t abdicate completely, ie don’t’wash your hands of the film once you put it in someone else’s hands (the conventional sales approach) – keep involved along the way, gain as much learning as possible, split revenues, resources, knowledge base, contacts … and lever the outcomes to your next and future films.
Final notes: Pricing of films on the transactional side is relatively commensurate with that in the US, however non USA SVOD and AVOD markets are smaller with lower revenue per deal. . We did not include VIEWSTER in this article but feel free to check them out. They are a consumer-facing platform that also supplies other platforms (i.e. functions like an aggregator). They seem to favor films with cast, more commercial films and those with a bigger profile. www.Viewster.com
Orly Ravid May 15th, 2012
Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, Hulu, International Sales, iTunes, Netflix
Tags: aggregators, AVOD, digital distribution in Europe, distributor, DTO, independent film, Orly Ravid, release windows, Rights Stuff, sales agent, subtitling, Sundance Artists Services, SVOD, The Film Collaborative, TVOD, Viewster, Wendy Bernfeld
Ten (10) Tips to Filmmakers
It was truly delightful being at IDFA. Great films, panels, parties, and I even worked in a quick museum visit. The city of Amsterdam is fantastic.
Here is a recap of some of the tips I presented to filmmakers at IDFA, and some examples. For you veteran producers/directors this may be gratuitous but others find these useful so here we go, and similar to the Four Agreements, reminding and repeating can only serve to reinforce:
1. BUDGET FOR MARKETING & DISTRIBUTION: Budget for Marketing & Distribution even if you think you want a sales agent and distributor(s). This money will still be useful and will also afford you the ability to execute DIY even if it’s a backup plan. I recommend at least 10%-20% of your budget, depending on how big it is. By having some money set aside you will be able to properly market your film at festivals and markets and also well-positioned to do DIY distribution should you want to, and also for things such as E&O insurance (required by Hulu and Netflix for example) and deliverables for digital etc. Any investor or supporter should be happy to see this budget line item as part of your plan.
2. BUILD COMMUNITY | DEVELOP A LONG TERM CONNECTION WITH COMMUNITY AROUND YOUR FILM: Designate someone who is intimately connected with your film to be engaged in the work of building community around your film well in advance of the film being finished. Six months is not too long, in fact more is better. And doing the grassroots outreach and social network marketing around your film cannot just be you trying to sell your film. Rather, it must be authentic communications and participation in dialog and discussions that are relevant to the film. Sheri Candler and Jon Reiss also discuss this at length in our co-authored book which has good examples (Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul). Only a small percentage of your communications should be about your film in a sales oriented way, otherwise you will turn people off. If you continue to collect emails and continue to grow your community then you will have a bigger support system for your film at each stage of its release and of course for your next works. Several filmmakers in our book have done this very well.
3. KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE: Know who your audience is. Sheri Candler suggests being super detailed about that, really specific. And as Jon Reiss also notes, be clear about how your audience consumes films. I always recommend one think about preceding films that have tapped into similar audiences and that you can relate your film to. This will help resolve what can work well or not and you can even hopefully access some of the contacts from another filmmaker. Some films for example are much more ripe for educational distribution, monetizing festival distribution, and also television sales. Other films may not be suitable for all three of these but just one but may also do better via transactional VOD and/or SVOD. Some films lend themselves to corporate sponsorship or under-writting (e.g. Revenge of the Electric Car which got Nissan to sponsor, after the film was made) whereas a small film about a specific local issue in a third world country may not be viable for such financial and marketing support. The key is to note that most films do not appeal to most people and that if you are trying to appeal to general audiences you better have tens of millions of dollars to do it, and if not, be specific, be niche, targeted, grassroots oriented about it and authentically clear about who you are speaking to so that you know how to speak to them and when and where. Some films demand to be owned while others do very little sell through business but rent very well and work on television well.
4. KNOW YOUR GOALS. People on a filmmaking team may have different goals but it is important to note yours and the hierarchy of them so you can plan accordingly. If changing the world is your top goal that will yield a specific strategy that may not completely coincide with making money, or it can, depending on your film. Hence all the above-points and this one go together. If changing the world and making money are equally important and your film is not one that will likely do a lot of sell-through business you may find all the more reason to monetize offering the film for free, whether via YouTube, SNAG, or underwriting free airings on PBS (in US) or Hulu (for example) but this way you will reach broader audiences, build awareness for your film and monetize it in other ways (via ad-support, sponsorship, increased transactional business because of the awareness, and maybe even a reverse window theatrical if your film proves its audience traction). But it’s very hard to resolve the best plan without being clear internally about the priority of your goals. (Please note one can also sell the film to PBS in the US).
5.DON’T SHY FROM A BUSINESS PLAN. IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU DIRTY. Having a business plan will help you know what you don’t know and help you plan ahead and be able to effectively market and distribute your film and achieve your goals. Plan ahead. It’s a must and does not make you dirty or any less creative, just more sustainable. You will fall behind and lose opportunities or make mistakes otherwise. Digital distribution strategies vary per film and are quite individual so planning ahead will help make sure you execute the best plan for your film and know best how to respond to opportunities at markets and festivals that present themselves. Also, if you are comparing your film to others in order to resolve goals and a plan, make sure the other films are relevant either in terms of timing or scope. For example what happened in the 1990’s is really not a viable comparison today. Also remember if you are looking at THEATRICAL GROSSES, the distributor gets usually at most 50% of that revenue or even as little as 25 – 40% and there are expenses to get there, sometimes rather big ones depending on the release so your plan needs to be based on the real and complete set of information.
6. THE THREE Ms | CARVE UP RIGHTS | TIMING OF DIGITAL: The THREE (3) M’s are: MIDDLE MEN, MONEY, and MARKETING. Before giving rights to anyone you need to be clear if you are dealing with a Distributor, Aggregator or Platform. It is important to know that these are not the same, and yet, they are CONFLATE! SNAG is now for example both a PLATFORM and an AGGREGATOR. Some SALES AGENTS are now acting as AGGREGATORS or trying to. However the key is before giving rights to anyone, especially a sales agent or distributor, one wants to know how DIRECT the entity is with the places you want your film to be and at what terms. In the digital distribution realm, which is eclipsing DVD quickly, if you think of platforms as stores, you would want to be in all the good ones at the very least, and you will be better served being only once removed at most. Most good platforms are not direct with filmmakers so one middle man is usually unavoidable, but two really starts to be terrible for you financially. Also in terms of fees that an aggregator or distributor can take, 15% is a fee we approve of, and sometimes as much as 25% is acceptable but not more than that generally speaking. Platforms themselves usually take 30%-50% (but not all platforms have the same deal with all aggregators or distributors so you will also want to evaluate that). The other thing to analyze is what sort of marketing the entity taking your rights will do to earn their fee. The higher the fee the more they should be doing for you in terms of handling delivery and marketing. An example, the Oscar shortlisted film We Were Here has seven (7) different companies involved in the North American distribution alone, and can sell off the websites(s) too. Always carve out the ability to sell off your site(s). If you are ever confused about this please feel free to contact us for advice.
7. AFFILIATE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS, FESTIVALS & CORPORATE / MEDIA SPONSORSHIP: The sooner you identify the organizations, media or corporate sponsors that may want to be connected to your film and help you either via outreach or financial support or both, the better. And corporate sponsors especially need at least 6 months of lead time or even a year or more so better to approach early and guess what? YOU WILL NEED TO SHOW THEM YOUR DISTRIBUTION PLAN. With NGOs you can do a lot to both change the world and generate more revenue and we recommend giving them the incentive of an affiliate relationship (whether for theatrical, DVD, VOD or all of the above). Also festivals you’ve shown it can and should let their members / audiences know about your film when it comes out. An example from our book is Ride the Divide (a Jon Reiss case study). The filmmakers premiered the film on a small US television channel called Documentary Channel (which they sold to) and this was coordinated with the transactional digital on iTunes and they also debuted with a free screening period on YouTube which launched their partnership with non-profit organization Livestrong with which they have an affiliate relationship.
8. KEY ART: BIG & SMALL: First of all I want to remind people that sometimes it does serve a film to have two campaigns and that is not necessarily bad or confusing marketing. For example a film that is both speaking to a niche community but also wants to change the world and speak to a more general and mainstream community may have two different art works. But one has to try to integrate the two because of course brand recognition is key and the whole point of festival and theatrical distribution is to have a film be known in the public consciousness so keep that in mind when choosing publicity and marketing images. Also remember, your key art will have to work small so even if you are doing theatrical posters and want good art for that, you need to make sure your image(s) works as a thumbnail image on the web.
9. MANY WAYS TO DO THEATRICAL: In the US this topic has been covered quite a bit. In Europe doing theatrical in a non-traditional manner is still under construction. However we are inspired by what Dogwoof does in terms of Pop Up Cinemas and a Dutch documentary mini showcase of sorts that Sean Farnel explained to me and which I have to research better (in fact I am probably even explaining it incorrectly here). But the key is for European festivals and organizations to help filmmakers with a solution that eliminates the need to accept theatrical defeat if one’s film is not bought by a traditional distributor or would be bought only via deleterious terms. This may also take the burden off of MEDIA needing to fund quite as much because after all, most films do not need to be on screen five (5) times a day seven (7) days a week to mostly very few people most times. But what they do need to is to engage with public audiences, get some key publicity and buzz. One new interesting company in the US that may inspire is a digital / virtual theatrical service company called CONSTELLATION www.constellation.tv Another one is Emerging Pictures which is a service that networks theaters for event theatrical / hybrid theatrical. this is a cost-effective way to achieve the goals of theatrical without the burdensome expense. Of course if one is qualifying for an Oscar there are specific theatrical guidelines that are unavoidable but even that is more doable via the IDA, for example.
10. STAY CURRENT: Digital distribution changes weekly, at least monthly. Different ways of working windows changes so stay current, ask around, and always ask more than one person.
One last EXTRA TIP for the road: Don’t ever write your blog post in Word Press directly without constantly saving draft as I just did because then if it freeze, which mine did, you will have to start all over again!
Distribute in Peace,
– Orly
Orly Ravid November 25th, 2011
Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, Film Festivals, International Sales, Marketing, Uncategorized
Going to Market with Your Film, Cannes 2011
TEN TIPS for FILMMAKERS
Going to Market or Seeking Distribution
Going to a festival / market such as Cannes is exciting. Wine is often cheaper than water. Almost anything you eat there tastes better than almost anything you’ll eat here, even though it is a tourist trap. Somehow, no matter how many carbs one eats, one usually still loses weight either because of the hustling and bustling or the fact that the French make their food lighter even when it’s rich and they don’t use preservatives when we do…. ahh France. But, I digress.
When searching for distribution at or in preparation for, a festival or market, be clear about your goal and the amount of responsibility you have to your investors. You should be conducting a lot of research before you ever hit the market floor to identify which companies will be a good fit for your film. Depending on your knowledge, experience, willingness to take responsibility and the type of film you have, it may be advantageous to sell your film on your own, or it may be better to use a sales agent. Much is entailed with selling a film in different territories and formats and if you do not have experience in doing so, you may be better off working with someone who does. I have some tips for you to follow regardless of how your film will be sold. The Film Collaborative can help filmmakers who have decided to handle their own sales by evaluating contracts and guiding them through the process without taking the filmmakers rights, but it does depend on the filmmaker’s willingness to actively solicit buyers in the first place. Attracting suitable buyers is a time consuming and costly process (travel, marketing, sales skills), so if you have no interest in doing this, it is better to delegate that work (and your rights) to a sales agent. Before signing on the dotted line with ANYONE, (sales agent or distributor) you will need:
1. REFERENCES: Get references, and then call or email the *other* filmmakers the company has worked with. I am only partly teasing. You should be able to find a list of current clients on their website and you can research contact details for those people. It’s great to contact the references actually given, but sometimes it gives a clearer picture to contact a few at random. You’ll be shocked by how useful this can be to either comfort you that you are doing the right deal or protect you from being stuck in a deal you should not have done. The Film Collaborative has set up a Distributor ReportCard (a sort of “Yelp of Indie Film Distribution”) to help in the research of this. Check out our Distripedia™ section on our website www.TheFilmCollaborative.org
2. CAP EXPENSES: Define and cap all recoupable expenses and evaluate those based on projections. Spending $30,000 – $50,000 – $75,000 – $250,000 ++ is not inherently bad or good. It depends on the upside and the reasoning. Be clear about what the expenses are for, how much is approved, and if you and 8, 10, or 12 other people are being charged back for the exact same bill. Let’s not let that happen. Are you paying for a party in Cannes? Maybe that is what is needed to attract buyers…just make sure that you are choosing to do so and that it makes sense. If the expenses are for distribution, have an idea about P&A budgets for different types of releases, the size of the release, the realistic projection of return and how long that return might take. The bigger the release (theatrical to many cities, large advertising spend, high cost publicists), the more expense is incurred and likely the longer it will take to recoup. And one should have a clear sense of the objectives and projections of the theatrical so one can properly analyze expenses.
3. RIGHTS vs RIGHT TO SELL RIGHTS: Distinguish between the right to represent the rights (example, traditional sales agency could choose to do vs taking all rights) and vs having rights to actually directly distribute (example a sales agency that takes all rights so that it can also then directly do digital distribution or a buyer who buys multi territories but then has other companies do the distribution in most of them, or a company that does not do its own theatrical or its own digital or its own DVD. Extra middlemen mean extra fees means less $$$ to you. You may want a company to have both and take care of it all for you and maybe it’s even the most advantageous deal because of relationships and best terms. Just know what the deal terms will be instead of realizing after the fact. This is especially critical when fees and expenses come into play. You may not want or need your sales agent to directly distribute to digital platforms if you can manage this yourself or they don’t end up even doing that in unsold territories but have your rights anyway, or maybe you do. And that brings me to another point about rights, don’t give any away that won’t be “exploited” as they say in the industry (that’s meant to be a nice thing). I.e. have rights revert back to you that are not properly handled and try to not give them away in the first place without knowing why it makes sense to. And I always like to carve out digital platforms a filmmaker can get onto that a sales agent or distributor does not want or choose to (in collaboration with the distributor or sales agent of course).
4. ACCOUNTING: Make sure you know when Accounting is due and when your corresponding payment is due. Try for QUARTERLY unless you don’t like money coming in at least 3 times a year since most will pay no sooner than 30 or 60 days after the end of the quarter. Semi-annual accounting is possibly acceptable later into a term if you have no choice.
5. AUDITING & ARBITRATION: Reasonable Auditing and Arbitration provisions are key so you can have a clear way of investigating. Know where the arbitration will be conducted. “Resolving a matter via arbitration may be less expensive and more expedient than having to sue the distributor, but an arbitration provision may also be less effective at encouraging the parties to compromise prior to invoking arbitration than the threat of a lawsuit,” says TFC’s legal counsel Cherie Song, an attorney at McGuireWoods LLP. Also, “a distributor should have an obligation to maintain records of all sales and rentals of the film, and give you the right to inspect such records at reasonable hours with prior notice,” she says. “If your audit finds an underpayment, the distributor should pay you the difference within 30 days of demand, and if the difference is more than 5%, the distributor should reimburse you for your auditing costs.”
6. TERMINATION: Also set parameters by which a deal can be terminated. Not suggesting this should be random and exploitive of the sales agents or distributor’s efforts, but should they be in breach or become insolvent, one needs a remedy if it’s not cured. “If the distributor fails to fulfill a material obligation (e.g., if the distributor fails to pay the MG or your share of “Gross Receipts”, fails to provide statements or fails to market or distribute the film within a certain time period following complete delivery) or files for bankruptcy, then you should have the right to terminate the agreement with notice, with the rights to the film in unsold territories immediately reverting to you,” Cherie recommends. “The distributor should also indemnify you for claims resulting from its breach of the agreement and violation of third party rights. Furthermore, the distributor’s payment and indemnity obligations should survive the expiration or earlier termination of the agreement.” And our capitalizing of “Gross Receipts” is on purpose. All terms that have any possible key meaning and affect your deal should be capitalized and DEFINED! Many thanks to Cherie for her impeccable services to our filmmakers overall.
7. MARKETING PLAN: In order to distinguish a knowledgeable and reputable distributor from one who is less so, ask for a detailed marketing plan. For filmmakers to be in the strongest negotiating positions on this, a marketing plan should have already been developed and implemented during production and a fan base already started. The distributor will simply be adding extra muscle to this plan, both in terms of financing and staff. If there is no previous plan, ask to see exact specifics on how the title will be handled in-house and the expenses associated with it before agreeing to a contract. This is of utmost importance as the success of your title depends on these efforts. Without a clear understanding of the strategy, you may find your title simply becomes part of a catalog passed along during markets or part of a library that is rarely exploited. The more effort a filmmaker makes in gathering an identifiable audience for their work, the more leverage he/she has because the film has provable potential.
8. BUILDING AN AUDIENCE YOURSELF: Intentionally putting a fine point on this topic! More and more distributors and sales agents are researching your title just as much as you are researching them. If you haven’t made any effort to build an audience, the perception is maybe there isn’t one. You should be looking at the sales agent/distributor relationship as a partnership not as a savior. This makes your film far more attractive to those companies because they can see the money making potential and their efforts will make the title a much stronger earner. Wouldn’t you want to have an edge up on getting a better deal or not even needing one if you had already built an audience around your film well in advance of your first premiere? I know I would. (And thanks to our social network marketing guru / strategist Sheri Candler who contributed to this blog and especially #7 & #8).
9. CARVE OUT SOME DIY: Whenever possible, carve out the ability to sell off your own site and also via your own social networking pages and via other key DIY platforms & solutions. We recently did a blog (April 2011) about these so feel free to check out that info via the TFC site.
10. SPLIT RIGHTS / BE AS DIRECT AS POSSIBLE: If there is one thing I cannot stand is big fees taken out for being in the middle of revenue and not doing much to justify the fee. If a distributor is direct to key retailers and key digital platforms and is doing all or most of the release directly great. But if a distributor is licensing your rights for a not-very-huge-fee and hiring someone else to do the theatrical (and recouping an extra fee expenses) and / or not direct with libraries and institutions (if relevant) and/or not direct with key retailers or digital platforms then why bother? Go direct. Be as direct as possible. Split rights as much as possible especially when there is little investment on the MG side and/or little theatrical P&A side that help justify the rights needed for recoupment.
In closing, I will again emphasize research, research, research. Don’t be lazy and then regret later. It may have been more difficult to do this as an average filmmaker previously, but it isn’t difficult now. Take responsibility for your work and the business of it. Ask around. Ask other filmmakers, other companies, Ask us. Ask at least 3 people any given question so you can get a sense of the real answer to the extent there is one.
Bonne Chance!
Orly Ravid May 6th, 2011
Posted In: Distribution, Distributor ReportCard, Film Festivals, International Sales, Marketing, Theatrical, Uncategorized
Subtitles in Digital America
Recently I was invited to be on a panel at the International Film Festival Rotterdam (IFFR) and participate in their mentoring sessions and the lab at Cinemart. Great experience. I am always amazed by the difference between the US and Europe. The whole government funding of films and new media initiatives as our government is about to shut down. Well, their policies and practices do take their own financial toll too but one I think is worth it. For all my europhileness I have to note that the Europeans can be just as guilty of not wanting to watch subtitles in fact some countries dub films instead. And of course we know that Hollywood is big business in Europe too. But all in all, art house cinema seems to reach more broadly in Europe and even some parts of Asia than it does in the US. Films in Cannes and other top fests can sell all over Europe and never in the US or success in opening theatrically only in NY and maybe LA and overall it seems to me box office is generally down for foreign language cinema.
International filmmakers want US distribution and it was painful for me to discuss their prospects at IFFR because for so many, the prospects are slim. But this one’s for you! (Please note this blog is focused on digital distribution and not healthy categories for foreign language cinema such as Non Theatrical including Museums, Films Festival, Colleges, Educational / Institutional).
Cable VOD was 80% of the digital revenue in the US in 2009 but it’s now declining little by little, now estimated to be in the high 70’s (approx 77%) and may decline further still. The reason for this change, which is expected to continue, is that Internet based platforms are growing. Regarding FOREIGN LANGUAGE ON CABLE VOD: Distributors and aggregators agree that foreign language cinema is very hard to get onto Cable VOD platforms and slots for non-English cinema are reserved generally for marquee driven films and/or films with a real hook (name cast/director, highly acclaimed, genre hook). A big independent Cable VOD aggregator notes a real struggle in getting foreign language films to perform on Cable VOD and even Bollywood titles that had wide theatrical distribution and a box office of upwards of $1,000,000 still perform poorly (poorly means 4-figure revenue, 5-figure tops). They have had some success with foreign martial arts films and will continue with those in the foreseeable future. Time Warner Cable (TWC) remains more open to foreign language cinema though it plays the fewest films, a range between 190 – 246 at any given time (with a shelf life usually of 60 days and with 2/3rd of the content seeming to be bigger studio product, and the rest indie). By comparison Charter and AT&T play about 1,000 and Verizon plays 2,000, and Comcast plays about 4,000. [See below for the 2010 breakdown of Cable subscription numbers.] Hence, individual titles may perform better on Time Warner Cable for obvious reasons, Comcast may have more subscribers but there’s less competition and TWC is in New York, the best demographic for art house cinema.
Generally speaking, platforms overall are far more receptive to foreign films following the recent success of DRAGON TATTOO, TELL NO ONE, IP MAN, etc. than they have ever been before. However as one can see from the titles noted, foreign genre films are preferred because they have the opportunity to reach broader audiences than the usual foreign film. Genres that reportedly work include: sci-fi, thriller/crime, action, and sophisticated horror. Dramas have had limited success, and comedies often don’t translate, nor does most children’s content. In regard to Cable VOD – foreign box office is becoming an important proxy, because the marketing and pr tend to build US awareness on the larger titles prior to being available here. Many companies have built very successful VOD businesses pursuing a day and date theatrical or DVD strategy. Again, genre films work best, with horror and sci fi being the top performers. 3 of the top 10 non-studio titles in 2010 were foreign language subtitled releases. Small art house distributors say that at most it’s a small dependable revenue stream via services such as INDEMAND http://www.indemand.com (iN DEMAND’s owners are and it services Comcast iN DEMAND Holdings, Inc., Cox Communications Holdings, Inc., and Time Warner Entertainment – Advance/Newhouse Partnership.) Distributors and aggregators all site Time Warner as being far more open to foreign language cinema than Comcast, because it’s urban focused (NY, LA, etc) not heartland focused as Comcast is.
In terms of these titles finding their audiences on Cable VOD, Comcast announced improved search functionality by being able to search by title and Cable VOD is aware of its deficiencies and is said to be improving in terms of marketing to consumers but Cable VOD is still infamous for its lack of recommendation engines and discovery tools. Key aggregators work to have films profiled in several categories and not just the A-Z listing.
Top 25 Multichannel Video Programming Distributors as of Sept. 2010 – Source NCTA (National Cable Television Association)
| Rank | MSO | BasicVideoSubscribers |
| 1 | Comcast Corporation | 22,937,000 |
| 2 | DirecTV | 18,934,000 |
| 3 | Dish Network Corporation | 14,289,000 |
| 4 | Time Warner Cable, Inc. | 12,551,000 |
| 5 | Cox Communications, Inc.1 | 4,968,000 |
| 6 | Charter Communications, Inc. | 4,653,000 |
| 7 | Verizon Communications, Inc. | 3,290,000 |
| 8 | Cablevision Systems Corporation | 3,043,000 |
| 9 | AT&T, Inc. | 2,739,000 |
| 10 | Bright House Networks LLC1 | 2,194,000 |
| 11 | Suddenlink Communications1 | 1,228,000 |
| 12 | Mediacom Communications Corporation | 1,203,000 |
| 13 | Insight Communications Company, Inc. | 699,000 |
| 14 | CableOne, Inc. | 651,000 |
| 15 | WideOpenWest Networks, LLC1 | 391,000 |
| 16 | RCN Corp. | 354,000 |
| 17 | Bresnan Communications1 | 297,000 |
| 18 | Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC | 269,000 |
| 19 | Armstrong Cable Services | 245,000 |
| 20 | Knology Holdings | 231,000 |
| 21 | Service Electric Cable TV Incorporated1 | 222,000 |
| 22 | Midcontinent Communications | 210,000 |
| 23 | MetroCast Cablevision | 186,000 |
| 24 | Blue Ridge Communications1 | 172,000 |
| 25 | General Communications | 148,000 |
FOREIGN LANGUAGE CINEMA VIA OTHER DIGITAL PLATFORMS and REVENUE MODELS:
DTO (Digital Download to Own (such as Apple’s iTunes which rents and sells films digitally) – this space has been challenging for foreign films in the past, and most services do not have dedicated merchandise sections. Thus, the only promo placement available is on genre pages, so the films need to have compelling art and trailer assets to compete. iTunes and Vudu (now owned by WALMART – see below) are really interested in upping the ante on foreign films over the next 12 months. Special consideration will need to be made for the quality of technical materials, as distributors have encountered numerous problems making subtitled content work on these providers.
SVOD (Subscription VOD such as NETFLIX’s WATCH INSTANTLY) – this space is probably the best source of revenue for foreign content because the audience demos skew more sophisticated and also end users are more inclined to experiment with new content niches. Content in this space should have great assets and superior international profile (awards, box office), and overall should evoke a “premium feel” for the right titles, license fees can be comparable to high end American indies. Appetite for foreign titles will increase as the price for domestic studio content continues to accelerate. Genres are a bit broader than VOD/DTO, but thrillers, sci fi and action still will command larger sums ($). Good Festival pedigree (especially Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Sundance, etc.) will also command higher prices. Overall, it’s a great opportunity as long as platforms keep doing exclusive deals. NETFLIX has surpassed 20,000,000 subscribers and a strong stock price and is in a very competitive space and mood again. (See more below). Hulu expects to soon reach 1,000,000 subscribers “to approach” half a billion in total revenues (advertising and subscription combined) in 2011, up from $263 million in 2010. That’s from $108 million in 2009. (see more below)
AVOD (Advertising Supported VOD – such as SNAG and HULU) – Another great space for foreign content (as evidenced by the recent exclusive HULU – Criterion deal – (see below) although that deal is actually for HULU’s subscription service (Hulu Plus). These platforms are more willing to experiment with genres and content types and favor art films and documentaries over genre films. Depending on the film, annual revenues can approach low to mid four (4) figures in rev share. SNAG recently was capitalized to the tune of $10,000,000 but seems to be spending that money on marketing and not on “acquiring” so a film’s revenue is likely to be dependent on performance and rev/share unless one strikes an exclusive deal with SNAG and manages to get an MG. HULU’s revenues are covered above. Films report low 4-figures but sometimes 5 and 6 figure revenues but up until now those higher performing films have been English language and appeal to younger males.
TELEVISION / BROADCAST SALES: For foreign language cinema unless one has an Oscar™ winner or nominee, or an output deal, the prospects of a meaningful license fee are slim. Even worse, if you do secure a deal, it will likely preclude participation in Cable VOD, Netflix and any of the ad-supported VOD platforms such as Hulu and Snag.
KEY SPECIFIC TOP SPECIFIC DIGITAL PLATFORMS / RETAILERS:
AMAZON reportedly is readying a service that would stream 5,000 movies and TV shows to members of its $79-per-year Prime free-shipping membership program. Amazon being corporately tied to extremely popular entertainment information service IMDB and the film festival submission service WITHOUTABOX gives it a potential edge in the market, one that has never been fully harvested but easily could be and seems to be looming. And since its inception, Amazon has let film content providers open up shop on their site directly without a middle-man. Middle man aggregators get slightly better terms. Amazon presently offers 75,000 films and television shows combined and plans to soon exceed 100,000. It should be noted Amazon VOD has been US-focused though recently bought Love Films in the UK.
FOCUS FEATURES’ NEW DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION INITIATIVE: There is not much information out on this yet but FOCUS/UNIVERSAL are launching a new digital distribution initiative that may or may not brand their own channel on iTunes etc., but does seem to be focused on niche cinema to some extent and this may speak to foreign language titles. An option to watch out for.
GOOGLE is working on encroaching into the content delivery market with its launch of GOOGLE TV, which unfortunately has not created quite the fanfare the company planned for. It boasts: The web is now a channel. With Google Chrome and Adobe Flash Player 10.1, Google TV lets you access everything on the web. Watch your favorite web videos, view photos, play games, check fantasy scores, chat with friends, and do everything else you’re accustomed to doing online. GOOGLE TV does come with the Netflix App and others. Google partnered with some of the leading premium content providers to bring thousands of movie and TV titles, on-demand, directly to your television. Amazon Video On Demand offers access to over 75,000 titles for rental or purchase, and Netflix will offer the ability to instantly watch unlimited movies and TV shows, anytime, streaming directly to the TV.
HULU: Hulu’s numbers keep growing for certain films, which has to-date not been foreign language but that may change given the Criterion Collection announcement. Hulu is also now a subscription service (HULU PLUS) and announced the Criterion deal is for that. Criterion of course specializes in classic movies from the canon of great directors–Ingmar Bergman, Jean-Luc Godard, Federico Fellini, etc.–and has about 800 titles digitized so far, many of which are also available via Hulu competitor Netflix. It’s understood that this will be an exclusive deal, and that the Criterion titles that Netflix does offer will expire this year. Hulu Plus subscribers will initially get access to 150 Criterion films, including “The 400 Blows,” “Rashomon” and “Breathless.” Hulu says the movies will run without ad interruptions, but may feature ads before the films start; the free Hulu.com service will offer a handful of Criterion titles, which will run with ads. Hulu, owned by Comcast’s NBC, Disney’s ABC and News. Corp.’s Fox introduced the Hulu Plus pay service last year. Hulu CEO Jason Kilar says the $7.99-per-month offering is on track to reach one million subscribers in 2011. Competing for exclusive content seems to be on the rise as platforms compete for household recognition and top market share.
iTunes (APPLE): iTunes dominated consumer spending for movies in 2010 but that may not last long. One can get onto iTunes via one of its chosen aggregators such as New Video, IODA, Tune Core, Quiver… Home Media Magazine reported the findings of an IHS Screen Digest report that showed that Apple was able to hold off challenges from competitors like Microsoft’s Zune Video (via XBOX Kinect), Sony PlayStation Store, Amazon VOD and Walmart’s VUDU. Despite the new competition, the electronic sellthrough and video on demand market rose more than 60% in 2010, Apple iTunes still came out on top, perhaps due in part to the release of the iPad last spring and Apple TV last fall. Research director of digital media for IHS, Arash Amel, said, “The iTunes online store showed remarkable competitive resilience last year in the U.S. EST/VOD movie business, staving off a growing field of tough challengers while keeping pace with a dramatic expansion for the overall market.” However, it’s important to note that although iTunes staved off competition, the overall iTunes consumer spending fell almost 10% in 2010 to 64.5%. It was 74.4% in 2009. Insiders predict it will not hold its market dominance for long.
Microsoft’s Zune Video was one of Apple’s biggest competitors last year, accounting for 9% of U.S. movie EST/iVOD consumer spending in 2010 but this does not seem a key platform for foreign language cinema.
MUBI: www.Mubi.com having added Sony Playstation to its platforms reach, MUBI now has reportedly 1,200,000 members worldwide and is finally in a better position to generate revenue. Still its own figures estimates amount to 4-figures of revenue and that’s for all its territories. Mubi’s partnership with SONY does not extend into the US.
NETFLIX as reported in Multichannel News “as its subscriber base has swelled, Netflix has become a target for critics complaining that it is disrupting the economics of TV” is now a competitor to Cable and in fact Cable VOD companies won’t take a film if it’s already on NETFLIX’s Watch Instantly service. But Netflix is realizing it erred by losing focus on the independent and is now quietly offering bigger sums that compete with Broadcast offers and that are on par with the 5 and 6 figure revenues generated by Cable VOD for the stronger indie / art house films. Having films exclusively may be the driving force of future monetization in digital, or least in SVOD. Regarding 2011 outlook, Netflix’s “business is so dynamic that we will be doing less calendar year guidance than in the past,” the execs said. For the first three months of the year, Netflix expects domestic subscribers to increase to between 21.9 million and 22.8 million, with revenue between $684 million and $704 million and operating income between $98 million and $116 million. Internationally — meaning, for now, Canada — the company expects 750,000 to 900,000 subscribers with revenue of $10 million to $13 million and an operating loss between $10 million and $14 million.
REDBOX: Redbox, whose brick-red DVD vending machines are scattered across the country, is aiming to have a Netflix-like video streaming subscription service up and running by the end of 2011, company executives told investors mid February. Redbox is a wholly owned subsidiary of Coinstar. The Oakbrook Terrace, Ill.-based company claims to have rented more than 1 billion DVDs to date through vending machines at about 24,900 U.S. locations nationwide, including select McDonald’s, Wal-Mart Stores and Walgreens locations. It should be noted though that Redbox is very studio title focused and wide release focused but its streaming service will likely move beyond that.
WAL-MART bought VUDU and is expected to be a major player. Walmart is the world’s largest retailer with $405 billion in sales for the fiscal year ending Jan. 31, 2010. In the U.S., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates more than 4,300 facilities including Walmart supercenters, discount stores, Neighborhood Markets and Sam’s Club warehouses. VUDU, is Walmart’s recently acquired online media source where consumers can rent or buy movies and TV shows for their internet-ready HDTV, Blu-ray Disc players or PlayStation 3 consoles. Like iTunes, there are no monthly fees. Consumers can buy and rent movies when they want, and 2-night rentals are only $2. It will be interesting to see how VUDU will rise as a contender in 2011 and whether iTunes will suffer as a result of their success. Wal-Mart advertises that regarding VUDU: “from Internet-ready HDTVs to WiFi enabled Blu-ray players, you’ll find all the VUDU ready electronics you’re looking for at Walmart.com. Whether adding a flat panel TV to your dorm room or upgrading your home entertainment center, our selection of VUDU ready HDTVs has you covered. You’ll also save money on our VUDU ready products when you select items with free shipping to your home. With VUDU, you’ll be able to stream HD movies directly from the Internet to your TV in dynamic surround sound for a great low price. Shop VUDU ready HDTVs and Blu-ray players at Walmart.com — and save. “ And the retail giant makes sure all relevant devices / electronics it carries are VUDU-enabled. 2011 and beyond will be telling. Wal-Mart caters to the average American so it remains to be seen if there is an appetite for foreign language film via VUDU in the months and years to come. In its inception VUDU was catering to early adaptors of new technology and those eager to watch HD but now it seems to be becoming more generic. New Video is a preferred aggregator to VUDU, among others.
VODO (Free / monetized Torrent): www.VODO.net: This has not been tried in the US by most distributors if any and not for foreign language cinema but it has worked for several projects such as Pioneer One which generated $60,000 USD by having the content made available for free and then getting donations in return.
Other emerging retailers entering the digital space:
Sears and Kmart are the latest over-the-top threats to pay-TV providers’ video-on-demand businesses. Sears launched its online movie download service, Alphaline Entertainment, which will let Sears and Kmart customers rent or purchase movies, including on the same day they are released on DVD and Blu-ray Disc, provided through digital media services firm Sonic Solutions. Titles currently available to rent or buy from Alphaline include studio and successful TV shows. Under Sonic’s multiyear agreement with Sears, the companies will provide access to Alphaline services through multiple devices including Blu-ray Disc players, HDTVs, portable media players and mobile phones. Sears and Kmart, said in a statement. “We’ll continue to increase the reach and flexibility of the Alphaline Entertainment service by providing consumers on-demand access to the latest entertainment from a range of home and mobile electronics.” Sears, which merged with Kmart in 2005, is the fourth largest retailer in the U.S. The company has about 3,900 department stores and specialty retail stores in the U.S. and Canada. It remains to be seen if they take on foreign language cinema. New Video is also an aggregator to them.
That’s all she wrote folks. Until the next time.
Orly Ravid March 10th, 2011
Posted In: Amazon VOD & CreateSpace, Digital Distribution, Distribution, Distribution Platforms, Hulu, International Sales, iTunes, Netflix, Uncategorized
Tags: Alphaline Entertainment, Amazon, Apple, AVOD, Cinemart, Comcast, Digital Distribution, DTO, film distribution, Focus Features, foreign language film, Google TV, Hulu, InDemand, International Film Festival Rotterdam, iTunes, Kmart, Microsoft Zune, Mubi, Netflix, New Video, PioneerOne, Redbox, Sears, SnagFilms, subtitles, SVOD, Time Warner, VOD, VODO, VUDU, Walmart
Using the Distributor ReportCard
Since this is the start of festival season 2011 and many of you will be evaluating the best distributors to handle your film, we want to reintroduce our Distributor ReportCard site. The idea behind it is to give filmmakers a place to share their experiences with others, both good and bad. We would also like it to be a site where distributors visit to see how they are being perceived and where they might improve.
In order to contribute a report on a listed distributor, you will need to sign in or create an account. This is a free service. The site utilizes wikispaces so you should use a unique username and password. If you are already a member of The Collaborators site, you’ll need a different username and password than your Collaborators membership. If you want to add a distributor not included on the list, please send the name and website of the distributor to danielle [at] thefilmcollaborative [dot] org. Once cataloged, the distributor name and info will be added to the DRC menu.
POSTING:
1. Log into/create a wikispacesaccount using the special username and password. If you are creating an account, a Wikispaces MY ACCOUNT page will appear. Go to MY WIKI (near upper right-hand corner) and type in FILM DISTRIBUTOR GUIDE. A small window will pop-up underneath with FILM DISTRIBUTION GUIDE. (You can later add this to your favorite wikis and not have to type in the name each time you log in. You will still need to go to MY WIKI link to select it. Click on FILM DISTRIBUTION GUIDE. The DRC front page will come up.
2. On the far LEFT-HAND SIDE column, select the DISTRIBUTOR you wish to comment on.
3. Once you are on the chosen distributor’s page, click on the DISCUSSION tab.
4. Click the NEW POST button (located just under the distributor’s name, upper left side).
5. A NEW POST window will pop-up.
6. Fill-in your SUBJECT and type your MESSAGE in the pop-up window.
7. If you want to receive an email when others respond to your post, click the box “MONITOR THIS TOPIC”. If not, proceed to #8.
8. When you are finished entering your missive, click POST.
9. Your post is complete!
We want to encourage factual and constructive comments attributed to named individuals, however we realize that sometimes people have information to share, but cannot do it under their own names. If you have information to share, but are just too uncomfortable to use your name, it is possible to send those comments to us and we will enter the information. Please address these to Danielle at the email above and she will enter in the information with the disclaimer that the information is from an individual who refuses to be named. That way those doing research will be able to better evaluate the information.
Orly Ravid January 13th, 2011
Posted In: Distribution, Distribution Platforms, Distributor ReportCard, International Sales, Uncategorized
Tags: distribution companies, Distributor ReportCard, DRC, film distribution, independent film
GREAT EXPECTATIONS: Not Just a Dickens Novel. What Filmmakers want from film markets and what they can realistically get?
“Discerning the difference between a film that can actually sell well enough to justify having a third party sales agent and going to markets vs a film that is best served by DIY methods that should be planned and employed BEFORE the film’s first exhibition”
We get questioned all the time by members and others about which markets should filmmakers attend and which sales agents should they go with. Having unrealistic expectations is dangerous. It sets people up to do nothing on their own but wait for some third party to make their dreams come true.
We’re just coming off of AFM. indieWIRE reports growth attendance at the market. See this article
http://www.indiewire.com/article/2010_american_film_market_wraps_with_positive_numbers/# if you want to read the stats. They are however only relative to last year, a real low, and not addressing the question on everyone’s mind, what about the sales themselves. AFM has always been known more for genre films and cast-driven films. Troma films do well for the genre category and Henry’s Crime starring Keanu Reeves, James Caan and Vera Farmiga is a cast driven narrative being sold this year, for example.
It was decently busy from my p.o.v and buyers were there a bit more to buy than they were at say Toronto, according to our foreign sales partner, Ariel Veneziano of Re-Creation Media. But, the question is what are they there to buy and at what price? The shift in the business from the 80’s and 90’s till now is not reversing itself and I don’t think it ever will. Prices have come down, dramatically because ancillary business has shifted so much, retailers have gone under, and supply has grown. That is the case across the board.
Digital services such as Fluent, Gravitas, Distribber, Brainstorm (all of whom we work with) were all at AFM, digital is where the business is now, not in getting big MGs per territory for most films anymore, not for most art house films. Of course there is some of that business still but the people benefiting from it are the Sales Companies with big libraries and the aggregators with the same. The individual sales prices, after expenses are deducted, are more often than not, not making money for the filmmakers, not given the terms most companies offer, at least not from our vantage point, . Of course we’re not in the business of selling big genre films or cast-driven films so we are not addressing those. Docs do sell best to TV at doc markets such as Hot Docs and IDFA, to name two, and those so far still seem to be worth it and that business still has value. And of course a lucky few theatrical-potential docs sell at Sundance and TIFF etc.
Why do I bring this up? Because we get questioned all the time by members and others about which markets should filmmakers attend and which sales agents should they go with and the truth is, very often the films are not viable for a sales agent because the sales would be too small and if a sales agent did take the film on, the filmmaker would never see a dime after the sales agents recouped their expenses and fees and after one has paid for Delivery. And then the sales agent / sales company would have the right to do the DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION DIRECTLY that the FILMMAKER SHOULD BE DOING. That is the point of this blog. Discerning the difference between a film that can actually sell well enough to justify having a third party sales agent and going to markets vs a film that is best served by DIY methods that should be planned and employed BEFORE the film’s first exhibition.
Stacey Parks of Film Specific www.FilmSpecific.com recently sent this missive out to her members: “So AFM is coming to a close and the overall good news for everyone out there is that business is picking up from last year. Sales are brisk and even Pre-Sales are brisk for the right projects. I’ve met with several clients who are here at AFM and all of them are reporting good results in meeting a variety of people and companies as potential financiers for their projects, or sellers, or both.”
That’s exciting and we know Stacey knows her stuff and she’s a friend so all good. But I still want to know the numbers from everyone who sold a film, or didn’t after spending money trying, and ask all of you readers to share the real numbers, as we will of course (you will soon see), so that people can know what expectations are reasonable and what is not reasonable to expect.
Having unrealistic expectations is dangerous. It sets people up to do nothing on their own but wait for some third party to make their dreams come true. And then time goes by, months and even years, and one has done anything to build community around the film or get it out there. Then filmmakers are disappointed and blame others instead of making it happen for themselves. There is no excuse for that anymore.
We announced a partnership with Palm Springs International Film Festival to help its filmmakers distribute and we will be working with other film festivals to do the same. Filmmakers are embracing Jon Reiss and Sheri Candler’s PMD concept and that can really create success via DIY distribution or get an audience started to give leverage in negotiating a deal. The options for accessing Cable VOD and digital platform distribution and also having mobile Apps distribute the film are only growing, though of course the space gets only more glutted too.
But solutions are being worked out for that. Companies such as Gravitas are working with Cable operators vigorously to better program and highlight various categories of cinema, making it easier for audiences to find what they might be looking for. Comcast debuted a VOD search feature that imitates Google’s, and this will help in time: http://www.multichannel.com/article/459677-Comcast_Debuts_VOD_Sear
Verizon introduced Flex view to help consumers manage content on all their devices and all the players involved in digital are competing with each other to get as much good content to consumers in the most useful and user-friendly way to grow that market further, so whilst the space gets more glutted, there are more solutions in play to manage the paradox of choice a bit better and that’s why it’s imperative that filmmakers get engaged with their own success more and more, and sooner and sooner. Lastly, these days, aggregators such as Cinetic and many distributors openly rely on filmmakers to do a lot of their own community building and marketing so if you are already doing the work, you might as well keep your rights.
Again, we do sales ourselves, we know there is still value in that, but we implore you filmmakers to do the research before you give up the rights and before you just forge forward trying to figure out which market to attend or having organizations like us do that for you, for many many films, there is no market you can attend that will be worth your while. Create your own market that will pay off in the long run.
Orly Ravid November 11th, 2010
Posted In: Digital Distribution, Distribution Platforms, DIY, International Sales, Long Tail & Glut of Content