This past month, Science has collided with every industry on the planet, and as people look to scientists for answers, certain politicians and media have perhaps become less trusted than ever.

As The Film Collaborative readies a slew of real-world case studies on film distribution that we have been working on for months, it behooves us to re-examine and contextualize what we mean by the “real-world.” We have been covering COVID-19’s impact on film festivals and festival distribution (our core specialty) and you can read that blog series here. The case studies we are publishing presently are all on films released in the last year or two, so their lessons are fresh and relevant, notwithstanding the fact that festival distribution has collapsed and may not return to normal for months—if it ever reverts to what it was.

Science has many ways of looking at what went wrong—and what went right. So, before we ask what filmmakers are supposed to glean from a case study, it seems especially appropriate (and even maybe a bit refreshing) to look at what science does. And then we’ll swing back and suggest ways that filmmakers can get the most out of these case studies as they read them.

What role do Case Studies play in a scientific environment?

In the medical industry, a case study is a research strategy and an empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life context. Case studies are based on an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group, or event to explore the causes of underlying principles.

What can one learn from a case study? Because it only focuses on a single case, it’s not the gold standard. That honor is given to a “randomized control trial”—the highest level of research—and usually requires a wide sample size. Its aim is to separate what is anecdotal from what is based on collected data. And if you don’t have a wide sample, you need to list limitations of the study. After that, there is a meta-analysis, with peer reviews that form a consensus, which in turn leads to best practices.

So, what does science say one can learn from a single individual’s experience? Even on that front, a case study does not occupy the highest level of inquiry. When a sentinel event occurs, i.e. one that could potentially (or actually did) cause harm where the entire staff involved in that patient’s care and the higher-ups are all present. The meeting is used to identify the factors of what went wrong, with the purpose of improvement in the future, and to keep the same mistake from happing again. If someone or something performed poorly, they identify whether it was a performance error, or a systems error…in other words, a deep dive into the root cause of the problem.

A case study, by contrast, also applies to a single case, but it is not actually a strong level of evidence. It is educational, and functions as a teaching tool in order to give the audience a better appreciation of how a certain process works, like how a disease functions or progresses.

How can we apply this to film distribution?

Scientists are trained not to confuse factual with anecdotal evidence, but in the arena of film distribution, the lines become somewhat blurred.

When it comes to sharing data, we have a long way to go. We certainly do not have enough reporting and transparency to come close to the level of study that takes place in a randomized clinical trial. The Sundance Institute partnered with a few organizations a few years ago with its Transparency Project (which The Film Collaborative participated in), in an attempt to come up with some larger findings, but they couldn’t make it work because it seems there was not enough data to extrapolate from in a way that would produce something useful.

Of course, we could never create a methodology that could produce an entire set of best practices for film distribution, simply because the world, like the stock market, never has been, and is never going to be, predictable. The Film Collaborative produced two books over the years (“Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul” and another focusing on VOD outside the U.S.), and while they are not completely irrelevant, much of the information and players have changed to the point that they are not as useful as they once were. But even at their most useful point, it’s important to remember that they never functioned as a road map, and the same is still true: one cannot simply do the same things that Tom Huang (our first case study filmmaker) did and reproduce his success with Find Me.

How to read a film case study…

1. Find the ones for you. We are attempting to really cover the gamut in diverse case studies with respect to: [1] independent film genre; [2] diversity of filmmakers; [3] premiere status (so-called A-list festival, not A-list festival, non-festival premiere), [4] niche appeal; [5] traditional sales and distribution vs. DIY vs. hybrid models; and [6] successful releases by the filmmaker’s standards, and not disappointing ones. While reading each one would probably be useful in some way for many filmmakers, one can also analogize and utilize some more than others—the ones that are more fitting based on your film, goals, possibilities, etc.
2. Look for the similarities rather than the differences. If someone tells you about their experience, a natural initial human reaction is to see that person’s experience as fundamentally different from yours and to make a premeditated decision to get nothing out of hearing about it. But if you listen more closely, you can begin to find a lot of similarities in other people’s experiences. If you distance yourself, you set up your own prejudice systems—and learn nothing. So, when you read a case study, even if the substantive elements are different, look at the techniques that are employed and see if you might be able to use them to inform your process.
3. Learn to separate anecdotal evidence from best practices, including your own. If you made your last film three years ago, don’t assume that everything you think you know still applies. And, of course, you must re-think everything you thought you knew back in in February 2020, too.
4. Ask whether the filmmaker knew who their film was for, and if that filmmaker succeeded in identifying a path to reach that audience. Ask yourself the same question about your project. If you your answer is, “I can reach my audience if I had a studio-level marketing campaign,” you need to re-define your demographic to the point where you can reach them for a relatively small amount of money, or even using what we call “sweat equity,” and maybe marketing / media / organizational partnerships that can help.
5. Make a list of the practical ideas and advice that you can glean regarding how to market your film, to try and think about different trailer lengths, how much money to spend on ads, how to figure out if your ads are working, vendors to look into, etc.
6. Improve your self-awareness and critical thinking. Some of the drafts of the case studies we are getting underscore the reasons why TFC’s educational tools are so important in the first place. We had asked our filmmaker authors to be as transparent and honest as they wanted to be, yet are finding that even these drafts themselves reveal the filmmakers’ mistaken or unrealistic expectations, or place blame on third parties that do not deserve to bear the sole burden of the many systemic problems in the industry regarding distribution. We have working closely with these filmmakers (many of whom did not even realize they may have been wronged — or actually not wronged, depending on the example —until we pointed it out to them) to help them offer a more constructive presentation on some of the more difficult aspects of their projects’ journeys. The questions that arose from that exercise are useful in showing that not everything should be taken at face value.
7. What success and failure look like. We have not cherry picked the success stories, but rather have encouraged filmmakers to be more transparent about failures/stats/earnings in addition to successes, so that if strategies or partners do not produce desired outcomes, others can make different choices. And being clear about one’s goals and motivations will help put into perspective what success looks like (it’s not the same for everyone). And if there’s one thing that we hope you take away from these case studies, it is that not everything is possible for every film in terms of distribution.
8. Real numbers. When possible, we ask the filmmakers to be as transparent as they feel comfortable with in general, but also in terms of the fact that in some cases they have signed NDAs, or have other parties that they need to be accountable to.

In today’s climate only relatively few filmmakers who are offered a lucrative (or at least professionally advantageous) distribution deal from a distributor or digital platform get to walk away from the obligations and work of actually distributing their films. The rest must set aside their director’s chair and take on new roles surrounding the distribution of their film that they traditionally may not have ever planned to assume. TFC has seen many filmmakers who do not possess enough knowledge about how distribution works to make informed decisions as to distribution deals, such as whether to accept an offer from a distributor with little or no minimum guarantee / license fee and not-great terms and conditions, to try to go it alone and distribute their film by themselves, or to split rights with chosen partners. So, we hope that these case studies help to improve that, and we of course welcome any feedback or comments to casestudy@thefilmcollaborative.org.

Over the next several months, we will be releasing case studies on films of different genres, subject matter, and levels of success, and covering topics from sales agents, distributors and self-distribution to reaching an online audience, creating impact campaigns with calls-to-action, and being pigeonholed in one’s film niche. We hope you find them useful, inspiring and enjoyable!