PREFACE
This is the transcript for the first Open Forum On Independent Film Profits, held December 17, 2022, by experienced members of the professional independent film community.
The ongoing open forum is intended to stimulate discussion and explore answers to the many challenges facing the independent sector of producers and creators of film, series and other new media. It is part of the services and mandate of the International Independent Producers Guild Inc. (IIPG) to its professional membership and to the entire film producing community.
This covers producers, line producers, directors, key art crew, production managers, and encompasses streamers, distributors and sales reps of independent film products.
The IIPG is a professional guild with a mandate to (a) benefit and promote the financial, professional and business interests of professional independent producing community, and (b) to help professionalize the independent sector by the establishment of training, best practices & procedures, educational & training resources and more. To that end, the IIPG has published the firsst (and to this date, the only) manual of best practices and procedures for the production of film, series and new media. It is free to paid members of the Guild and comes with a subscription to the first years template and checklist supplements.
The discussion is conducted under Chatham House Rules, to encourage open and honest discussion. The opinions and statements expressed herein are not those of the IIPG. or any one acting on it’s behalf. The Guild is a facilitator of the discussion, but exercises no control whatsoever over the content or opinions, other than redacting names and personally identifiable information, in accordance with Chatham House Rules. Nor does it concern itself with your use of this document, apart from ensuring that you abide by the license its provision is subject to.
You have access to this document under a specific Creative Commons License. You may make any non-commercial use of the document or excerpts from it that you wish, but you MUST attribute credit to the International Independent Producers Guild Inc. where ever you use it, and you MUST NOT add new conditions upon the use of any derived work, as set out in the license. For your reference, the entire legalese of the license appears at the end of this document, on page 22.
We hope this is stimulating and that you will join the discussion at the Open Forum.
International Independent Producers Guild, Inc., December 29, 2022.
TRANSCRIPT STARTS
Moderator:
This is the first Open Forum On Independent Film Profits. We're sponsored by the independent, pardon me, International Independent Producers Guild. The guild is not going to exercise any editorial or other control over what is said. Nothing said by myself or anybody else is an opinion of the Guild. We're just facilitating the production itself and the transcripts. The forum and future installments are conducted under Chatham House Rules, which we're instituting as follows:
Moderator:
No names or information that might identify a person or a speaker will appear in the transcript. You can choose to identify yourself while you're speaking especially if it gives context to what you're saying. But your names will be redacted. And anything that actually identifies you, like I'm the the head of [REDACTED], that would be redacted. But if you were like, an employee of Sony which has, you know 50,000 employees minimum, we're not going too redact that part. But anything that could they notify you would be redacted. You can use the transcript for any purpose at all. It will be available to the public. You have agreed not to confirm that you are a speaker or a particular speaker, or to identify anybody that you might know participated. The audio and the original transcript will be destroyed as soon as possible after the redacted transcript is made public
Moderator:
The purpose for this is simply to allow us to say anything we want about industry or reveal secrets or whatever. It's not intended so that we can be mean or rude or anything like that. It's just so that we can have open discussion without fear because some of these things might be controversial. And also we want to explore anything that's crazy or not crazy. So, let me get an introduction.
Moderator:
The history of the film industry has been one of constant change from the very beginning, due partly to technological advances, partly do the evolution and the consolidation of multinational corporations and the ownership. Most recently, ownership of communications and media in this country, that's the United States, and across the globe has consolidated, also as a result of cultural changes, and recently, globalization of media distribution. These things are things that we don't normally discuss in film production but they affect us everyday, and they affect our ability to produce and distribute our content.
Moderator:
These changes have resulted in the severe restriction of market access for independent producers at all levels. Specifically through unethical business practices and monopolistic or cartel control of distribution by the major studios, especially over the last twenty years. Where independent film product has been locked out of theatrical distribution on purpose and therefore denied vital word of mouth which impacts our sales.
Moderator:
In addition as the streaming platforms have developed, those which were moderately successful have been purchased by mainstream studios and are wholly or partly own subs, like Vudu, Tubi or Pluto, for instance. And they are now platforms which promote the same content, just priorizing major studio content over independent content. Platforms like Netflix, and especially Amazon, to the extent they have independent content, use that content as traffic generators, which traffic they bait and switch to the content they want to profit from. So they don't split the money with us. They use us as traffic generators. The paradigm is worsened by the fact that the independent sector has allowed the majors to access our product for little or no money.
Moderator:
Where they pay independent produces very little or don't pay for it at all, frankly, there's no monetary incentive to exploit independent product. They can't be expected to actually do so. That's the upshot. You know, back in the film days it was an axiom that if you got all your investment and profit on delivery of your negative because your distributor wasn't going to pay you down the road, just as a rule. And I remember people, like even Jerry Bruckheimer, having to sue Warner Brothers for his profit. Now it goes all the way down the line.
Moderator:
The other point being that the more the distributor paid for your film, the greater their incentive to promote it themselves because they had bought into it. In other words you're giving them a product they shouldn't get that product for free or be able to control the money for that product. And if it is for free, what incentive do they have to sell it?
Moderator:
You know the paradigm of getting paid for your product upfront was defeated by the major studios on purpose. And that's how they operate still. You don't get their product unless you pay for it up front. And that’s good for the majors, but they have structured it so that independent producers don't get to do that.
Moderator:
Technology has reached a tipping point where we as independent producers and creators no longer need parasitic middlemen to distribute. I use the word parasite for a reason. We can literally reach the entire globe now for pennies per view. literally, from our own website. And if those views become large numbers, the technology available to us allows to scale up within days or even hours at pennies. We no longer have to split our money with a sales rep or the distributor if those people are not offering us real value in terms of greater profits. If they are not offering us increased profits, they are parasites. If they are making us more money, then they have a function and are not parasites. Most are parasites, by definition.
Moderator:
The challenges that face us happen to be the same challenges which have always been the case from the early days of film. First, funding our creation. That's always been the challenge, but it's the challenge for every product in every industry. It's not unusual or peculiar to film. The second challenge of course, is marketing and advertising. Getting heard over an increasingly loud crowd, in other words, getting the word out and getting to our audience. But those two challenges, again I've been around since the beginning of film.
Moderator:
They've been around since since forever, all the way up to today. So, with that introduction, just to put things in the context of where I think we are today, we want to explore some of your experiences and want to hear your opinions. We want to talk about some of the challenges that you're having currently that might be unique. My comments above of course are going to be relating mostly to the North American context, but we have people international here and I'm gonna think that might be different. Also, what is the way forward as far as you're concerned?
Moderator:
What's your experience of success or failure in getting to a paying audience with your own product? What peculiar challenges do you see today that you think are different than may have been in the past, or that might be on the horizon. What possible solutions have you thought of, even crazy ones, you know, and what as an individual producer, can you do to make money in your industry? And how do you think the independent sector can cooperate or organize to do advantage?
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
One of the things that I'm working on is the introduction of a centralized network that leverages or coordinates the many, many up and coming independent streamers. Many of whom are more niche and have 15000 or sometimes hundreds of thousands of viewers but not in the millions. If we can organize that into a centralized co-operative administration, we can leverage those numbers to get large budget advertising feeds. We can also create a marketplace for independent film that has access to those large numbers. So basically we can create and coordinate that kind of market economics at scale. It's relatively easy to do logistically, and that's one of the things that we're working on.
Speaker 3:
I can talk about my paranoia.
Speaker 1:
Paranoid about what?
Speaker 3:
So, I think as far as independent streamers and producers, everyone even in Hollywood and big guys are having trouble right now. At some point they're gonna come after us for being successful. So I think we should [UNINTELLIGIBLE] to have our own servers, just in case we have to break away from Amazon's servers and basically kind of, you know, look out for the storm. I'm not trying to be like a, a a person with a tin foil hat. But yeah, I think at some point they are going to pick on us and we have to be ready.
Speaker 2:
What I think is interesting too is that I'm hearing more and more stories of independent filmmakers who are being approached by places like Amazon and Netflix. And being offered really well, seemingly really big checks for their short films. And what I'm seeing more and more on Netflix, for example are, when you look at the opening credits, you'll see a Netflix executive producer in the opening credits. And I've never really noticed that before. I usually watch the credits quite closely. But I'm seeing that more and more and I'm just wondering to [REDACTED]’s point, if they're method of coming after us is basically to buy up our content and then develop it say, from a short, to a full length feature.
Speaker 2:
And I'm also seeing, especially in the UK, I've had a recent experience where somebody had approached one of my directors on a feature film. And when I did some digging into the company this individual supposedly worked for Lionsgate but then left Lionsgate. But then she's approaching us with her own production company which has doesn't have any credit really. What, you know a couple of DBC credit maybe and, and yeah, she's approaching us, you know as like an executive producer. And when I did a deep dive into her background I found out that she's actually on like the board of directors for British Film Council.
Speaker 2:
Which is, I mean, given her - I and, and not to penalize the young - but given her age and relative lack of experience she's way out of her range being on the board of the British Film Council. So I'm just wondering if these structures are being set up, you know, so they can scour the market and find material that they're interested in and then write a check and then just go ahead and develop the film on their own.
Speaker 1:
Well, I think that's two things. First of all this [UNINTELLIGIBLE] that we want to talk to two things. I understand the Motion Picture Association of which Lionsgate is part, is a cartel and they've always acted as a cartel. And also the major studios are studios, they're not producers. I mean, we call them producers but they aren't producers, otherwise there is no market for a script, right? Of the major studios can produce their own product.
Speaker 1:
If they don't have ideas, they need writers and they work through outside producers. So, you know, in terms of large cartel economics I can see that that's a machination or ,a structure that happened in the past and that could happen with Lionsgate’s people. If they go out on their own and then they're suddenly doing a certain number of things then...
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:
The question is are they really away from Lionsgate or who's funding their product at this point? Because they're not doing - they're thing facing the same challenges we all have, which is: where's the money? So if they're suddenly going out, they left Lionsgate and they're out and now they're doing their own films, then somebody's funding them and I'll bet you that's Lionsgate. So you know and those arrangements come with a lot of different strings attached. So, you know, maybe behind the scenes that is very similar to what's happening but I don't know that that's a change in the industry.
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
That is one of the things that we face. But you know, what does it matter if somebody's buying your script? I guess, the question is what rights, they're getting when they buy that short script, and what's behind the shorts. Because shorts are not montizable, not even at Netflix level, really not really, you know. So, if they're buying that, are they taking the whole IP for it.? And that's what your suspicion is, right? They’re taking the whole IP and then it's a way of them circumventing development costs, right? And buying the concept. And, you know, if it's a nice interesting short story they get the whole IP, including characters. It would be interesting to see what those contracts look like.
Speaker 2:
Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:
Alright. Did they get access to the characters, to derivatives and adaptations? Which means that I sold a short film, you know, I produce for $2,000 , they give me $10,000 and then they run off with some weird franchise, hundred million dollar franchise and I'm out of it. I'm not even named. I can see that that's a thing. But as to [REDACTED]’s paranoia, I mean, I think paranoia is good in a certain way...
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
Recognize this: in terms of numbers, in terms of data transfer, the major studios are nothing. Amazon, Netflix in terms of the video transfer, we're a drop in the bucket to the amount of data that transfers across the globe every minute. So, and you know, the major studios are not infrastructure people. They don't own anything in terms of physical distribution. Right? To my knowledge, Amazon does but Amazon studios is just a teensy bid of what Amazon does itself. Computing AI and data transfer stuff across the globe in every industry. And that's huge, huge, huge data.
Speaker 1:
So I think that the ability for anybody to come after us or shut us down in that way is negligible. I just don't see that happening, because the film industry [UNINTELLIGIBLE] do not their film industries. and the issue that's happening right now, the paradigm that we're seeing is, if you've been paying attention to the news and the latest, you know that Disney is thinking of selling out to Apple or Apple is thinking of buying Disney. And that's indicative of the technological change that the major music industry went through about twenty years ago.
Speaker 1:
Okay? The music industry, once they reached a tipping point in technology and everybody could distribute their content without the major industry distribution nets, they went bankrupt within five years literally. And at this point in the last year it's become possible for all independent film to distribute direct to the world. And the mainstream studios are facing that same issue. The streaming services have never been, never ever been profitable. You know who has never been profitable as of this month? Netflix is $16 billion in debt. They started off the year at twelve and you know, they're just not profitable. And so when I see somebody like Disney may be being bought out by a computer company Apple - the same one that bought out and literally owns the music distribution industry - at this point, I see the same thing happening. So, in other words, I think the major studios in terms of being the lead in the industry could be facing a crises .
Speaker 1:
You know they'll be there in the market in name but the turf they have, they can't hold it any longer. It’s not possible. So I see that happening. But in terms of them being able to take away the infrastructure, I don't, I don't think that's possible. I think it is likely [REDACTED] that it’s smart to have, you know, redundancies. And have redundant servers and that sort of stuff, but that's a business thing for anything that deals with data. That’s not peculiar to film.
Speaker 1:
The way the industry has maintained control has always been through unethical business practices and, and frankly monopolistic types of things. But denying you actual, physical access to something, except for theaters, of course, but that's contractual thing. So they've never, you know, they've never said no, no film camera for you or for her. Or they never bought up all the film cameras to make sure that we couldn't access them. Things like that, you know, and that's the kind of thing that you're feeling. I don't think that that's a real fear, I think the real fear is getting to the point where we can make money on our product, right?
Speaker 3:
Right.
Speaker 4:
Well, let me let me throw something in there. two things actually. So a friend of mine who is a director and produced his own short movie completely from scratch, Netflix came to him and offered him £25,000 for a short film which is obviously mad money for somebody that’s just like, it's like as a side hustle. And obviously, he said yes, so they have the rights to distribute it like, through Europe. I don't think they got the international rights for it, but even if that and he says like, no, I want $70,000, he has no basis to negotiate there. And I have worked over a decade in sales, I know when you are on the back foot when it comes to negotiation, right? So [UNINTELLIGIBLE] just asked this or worldwide rights that they can say, okay, take it or leave it. Gotcha.
Speaker 1:
Wow, yeah.
Speaker 1:
Right.
Speaker 4:
So for ten years he's out of that. He will get like two percent of whatever, like profit on Netflix. But he already made his $3000 or 4000 budget investment back. Anyway, what if Netflix does it on that level, they can easily do it on the features level as well.
Speaker 1:
Sure. So that's peculiar because that doesn't happen North America. They stopped taking most American content a couple of years ago like, literally they shut it right down just before they came became a member of the MPA. They shut down independent content and Distribber went bankrupt and Tag went bankrupt because they were one trick ponies. They were really only making the money off of Netflix. So they, you know. But across the world, globally they're doing that. That's interesting though. But I don't understand Netflix economics to be quite honest.
Speaker 4:
I think Netflix doesn't understand it either. So, that's the thing.
Speaker 1:
Because they're just, yeah, cause I can't see that implies that they think they're gonna make £50,000 on this thing, right? I mean, does that make sense for a short film?
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 4:
I don't see how they can. to be quite fair. on a short. So I can totally see the budget margin on a feature. Another friend of mine actually also had a short film bought. And they never released it but he's now unable to release that short film for the next ten years on any other platform. That's the problem, yup.
Speaker 1:
Right.
Speaker 5:
So now come to [REDACTED] I'm thinking they bought it, because now they own the rights to the IP to develop into a TV series or feature and there's like dropping $25,"000 for an option but now that IP’s just out of the game. That's what I'm thinking.
Speaker 1:
Right.
Speaker 4:
Would have been my first thought as well. Yeah, have been the first all what, what's the documentary? So it wasn't a documentary short [UNINTELLIGIBLE] for theory. That's the thing.
Speaker 2:
That too. That's exactly, yeah. That's what he was saying.
Speaker 5:
Oh, okay. I was just talking to entry...
Speaker 4:
Sound quite baffled as well.
Speaker 1:
Very interesting.
Speaker 1:
But you know, that's an old music industry tactic, to buy something up and not do anything with it. That's the music industry trick. In the old days when they, when the major industry actually controlled distribution, and you had a new musician there. As an [REDACTED] I know these tricks, a musician who was kind of onto a trend. The A&R people would go up and they would sign everybody who was doing something they thought was competitive. And they would just shelve them. Okay, so they would sign them up, give them a small advance. But they’re now signed with a, a major label and they, along with that assignment, they could tour but they couldn't record and they couldn't release and they couldn't do all sorts of stuff. And they just shelved those things and let dropped them. And then they could compete with what they perceived was the artist they wanted to monetize.
Speaker 1:
I see that is that is something. I guess it works in the mind of a, a corporate acquisitions person. If they see something and by shelving it and they're, I mean if they're buying and shelving it to protect something they have something that might compete with that. They see it as competition or they're gonna take it and just [UNINTELLIGIBLE] apply it you know, themselves I think that seems to be... £25",000. I mean, what's the development cost on a series, right? It's going to be more than that if you're hiring people like that. So that's cheap. Interesting. I didn't, I never actually thought of that as a thing but I think I can see that that's really happening. Can you?
Speaker 4:
Yeah.
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 4:
And like, quite honestly like I don't know what I would do if I had an offer like that. Maybe not for $25,000 but like, maybe for a $100,000, right? What would I do? would I still chance it and try to bring money to make a better deal of it, and then whatever. Or be like come on, I take the $100,000 and try the next project, you know. That's the thing.
Speaker 1:
Right.
Speaker 1:
I would take it up on 25 I would take it, I mean that's a good money for for a 3000 dollar investment, unless it's a franchise deal. I mean let's think about that right? But but definitely a 100000 I mean we're doing this, it's a business and we have to make money and make another film. I don't get the economics of that but yeah. On the other hand, the streaming platforms numbers are all private, you know. And they're gonna say they made money or not made money based on however they want to allocate the revenue and there's no way to prove it. Even the IRS can't prove that and...
Speaker 2:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
And I mean, that's a problem as a line producer. When I'm making projections and trying to come up with market comps you know, increasingly there are no numbers for something that we presume in terms of viewership ship has been successful. There are just are no numbers because it's on a streaming platform. And those numbers are private and they don't even tell you what they did or didn't make. And if they did it's maybe notional if it's a subscription based platform, you know, how they allocate that product. If it's a T-V-O-D platform you can't, you can't prove anything. That was the problem last year with Black Widow and the Scarlett Johansson lawsuit against Disney because they wouldn't tell her what they made on Disney Plus.
Speaker 1:
And so she sued them and we were all waiting to find out what they actually, what the numbers actually were. Because, you know, they're private and then of course, they settled when the judge said no, you're gonna have to reveal this in open court. They just settled and so we still don't know, you know, and I'm sure Scarlett doesn't know either. They just gave her a check to be, you know, enough to make her happy. So this is a problem, it’s a serious Netflix [UNINTELLIGIBLE] problem in the industry because we don't even know if they're in the black, right. And so...
Speaker 2:
Yeah. Well, it says the $16 billion, right? Is it $15 billion in the hole already? It's only been...
Speaker 1:
16 billion in long-term debt right now. Yeah.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, so, so they're not making money.
Speaker 1:
No, no. Probably, yeah, by the time the meeting's over... You know, that's within the context of a lot of the major mega corporations right now. Amazon, I was surprised to find out has never made a dime. Believe it or not they've never been in the black and other, other corporations have never been in the black and we're, you know, we're in this huge really weird bubble that's going on...
Speaker 4:
Probably seventeen when we finish this meeting, right?
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:
So that's partly within that context. But it doesn't make sense and as I said at the beginning of this year it was like, $12 billion now it's sixteen. So, oh my god, if that doesn't make somebody frightened at Netflix. I don't know. Yeah, that's an issue what are the, you know, how do we get around that?
Speaker 1:
I mean the problem is this: we're all individuals and this is, you know, they say the old paradigms are out, we use the phrase about herding cats. How do you get people to go in the same direction especially when they’re individual creators and producers, you know, and creators and writers. I don't know of a producer who isn't [UNINTELLIGIBLE] to writer any way. I'm a writer director, producer and therefore, you know, we have a vision that we want to get out, and that vision really doesn't relate to somebody else's vision. We're in the same industry but you know, so how what methods can we use in a, in that kind of environment to benefit that that group of people? Because it is hard to get them moving in the same direction, right?
Speaker 1:
So, we're looking at, like I said, facilitating, aggregating those numbers and, and feeding larger advertisements through those numbers because I think that we can sell advertising based on millions of people, whereas you can't sell advertising based on 10000 viewers. But if you have 3 million or thirty million viewers you can definitely get very large advertisers to fund those, and the numbers are pretty impressive. Okay, we background work this week on some of this and you know, for you to pay for a video ad you're looking at a minimum of $3 per impression. Okay, and that you're gonna pay up to $24 per impression.
Speaker 1:
So you know if you look at it based on CPM a thousand impressions is gonna cost you $3,000 to $24,000 and those are the industry stats right now. So, you know if we had a thousand views and we got $3,000 paid on those views, and split that 50-50 with the, with the producer, that's, what’s that? $1500 that's a dollar fifty a view. Right now you're getting paid a penny a view on Amazon. You know, Amazon is making $3,000 for that thousand views you know, because they're not selling at the minimum and they’re paying a penny.
Speaker 1:
YouTube is paying point zero seven cents a view to my knowledge, at the last time I looked. So, you know, YouTube is making more than $3 an impression. Alright. So the economics are basically theft. But if we can facilitate that then the funding portion, finding the money, becomes a lot easier because we can show that we're making a reasonable amount of revenue on the other end, right? And if we can facilitate that industry wide, the independent sector, then those individuals are more capable of finding the money they need. I mean, they have to pay attention to correct economics. You know you don't want to produce a $5 million film for a $500,000 idea, right? But you know if assuming that they are business people and they have some capability with management, keep your budgets low and then reach the widest audience possible. But yeah, the advertiser funded thing can actually do that.
Speaker 2:
Okay.
Speaker 1:
So that's one thing. What other processes can facilitate that because that's the problem, right? We don't have access to that revenue part, and it's our business, it's our product. We should be the ones deciding what it gets sold for. If you build a car, if you're GM or if your Tesla or if you're, you know, whatever vehicle you decide is manufactured, suggested retail is by the manufacturer. Why don't we get to do that in film? Because the industry is structured against us that way as producers and, I don't think we should be tolerating that. I think we should just do it and have access to that and today we can do it infrastructure wise. We couldn't do it twenty years ago.
Speaker 1:
We could do it in the seventies, when the studios didn't control theaters. But if you talk to people like Roger Corman and then Lloyd Kaufman, then they'll tell you straight out, you know, the year 2000 was last time you saw independent film in theaters. They locked us out and they locked us out through a combination of budgets and contractual relations and just intimidation of theaters. And that's the way it became and that's the way it is today too.
Speaker 1:
Anyway, I don't, I don't mean to rant on those things but what are other potential solutions? And I know that they may require facilitators, but what could be done, you know? Or if you want to shift to funding, what kind of paradigms might work for funding?
Speaker 3:
That's about it. Form a mega union, form a mega union and monetize everything from the server side.
Speaker 1:
Alright. What do you mean a mega union?
Speaker 3:
Maybe like everyone like all of us [UNINTELLIGIBLE] the streamer and, and also filmmakers. If we just all came together and I guess kind of you know, tap into distribution and monetize everything from the base, you know, from the server. And allocate some of those funds towards, you know, what I guess everyone will vote for or something like that. But it’ll have a source of money that comes from advertisers and it’ll make the advertisers pay for them. And then kind of lock everyone else out who's not in the mega union.
Speaker 1:
So that's the same thing, right? Locking people out.
Speaker 3:
Yeah, but it will have to do [UNINTELLIGIBLE] a month.
Speaker 1:
Yeah, I mean, I think I follow you but that is, that's kinda like the thing that we're talking about if we're going to coordinate. But it's voluntary, if we can coordinate, you know, create a marketplace that operates at cost, and advertiser feeds that go out to all these niche platforms so that any new platform can subscribe. That becomes voluntary. Right? But it still leverages the numbers and you let the market decide...
Speaker 3:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
...who wants to watch your movie. I don't think we can - that's kind of what we're talking about but it's not a union it's, it has to - there's no way to force it any way.
Speaker 3:
Right. Yeah
Speaker 1:
That would be, first of all, illegal, and secondly, probably not possible, but I think that the voluntary association is what I was talking about.
Speaker 3:
Well, okay. Okay. I know we... Right.
Speaker 1:
Any other ideas?
Speaker 4:
I don't have an idea. I have a concern. If you look at the developments for YouTube or what kind of content they're bringing, you see more and more sponsorship deals even for smaller YouTubers. And this is something where the industry could be heading as well. If you produce a smaller movie, an indie movie, and you just like, fill it up with that placement. You got your funding together that's great. But then we have basically like long, long, long commercials. What's your take on that?
Speaker 1:
Sure. That I think of there's two things. I mean it is pretty obvious. But first of all back to the future in a way. The beginning of television you know, advertisers would own a show. But I mean it wasn't a whole product placement thing. They basically said this show presented by A. And they would have their spot at the beginning and the end and it was, it was a show, right?
Speaker 1:
You know, politics dictated that advertisers had a lot of input as to the content, but that's the way television grew up and that evolved into the advertiser funded broadcast TV model that we still have. Which built, you know, which built television industry, So, I think it's a bit of an evolution, I mean, who's gonna watch a long long term advertisement? You know, I think that will take care of itself. I think if you get on a sponsor and I see it more and more, and I don't have a problem with it. It was sponsored by, you know, this VPN and they give you a blurb on that and then they do the content and that's fine. But if it got filled with that, who's going to watch that? So I think that would take care of itself. Nobody's gonna watch those.
Speaker 3:
Correct.
Speaker 3:
No. Sure. Alright.
Speaker 1:
So I think that's part of it. I don't have a problem with it, and I think it might be one of the solutions, to go out to get corporate sponsors for particular shows or particular series or something like that. So long as you can maintain the integrity of your content, because somebody has to pay for it and ultimately advertisers are gonna pay for it anyway. On the other hand, I think general advertiser ads are a better option and that's the way brick and mortar industry you know, where the broadcast industry went to. And I think that that the numbers are showing us that A-V-O-D is where it's at in terms of profits, you know.
Speaker 3:
Yeah, alright.
Speaker 4:
Uh-huh.
Speaker 1:
And the economics work out, you know. I'll tell you I had, literally the year before YouTube
Speaker 3:
Perfect.
Speaker 1:
I started an internet video platform called [REDACTED] and our business model was A-V-O-D, we didn't call it A-V-O-D we just, I just examined all the options, right? And did the numbers and I'm like, well, the television model worked. It created even back then multi-billion dollar industry and that works. AVOD, free content for people. I hate that word content. I'm with Martin Scorsese. Free film, free series, free entertainment, free, you know, thought provoking hopefully, shows for people. With, you know, funded by advertisers and I think that our advantage is with the T-V-O-D option these days, so that if people don't want advertisements you can automatically switch them to a pay per view paradigm right?
Speaker 3:
Perfect.
Speaker 1:
I don't see, I, you know, the subscription services are clearly dead losers, you know, And the major streaming sites are trying to keep their subscriptions alive because it's a bit of a cash cow so long as they're not paying anybody on the back end. But I don't see that as a way to keep the system going. I think that is part of the problem that we're in today. So, that's my take. I just don't think that it's going to be practical in the long run because people aren't gonna watch that and...
Speaker 3:
Sure...
Speaker 2:
Hey.
Speaker 1:
But what do you think? Do you have any kind of issue with an advertiser actually sponsoring a show, as long as it’s not just a long commercial for them or do you think there's an ethical issue?
Speaker 4:
I don't care about that. Sorry man. Sorry I don't care [UNINTELLIGIBLE] that's not the major points but like if it feels forced it kind of breaks the world you're trying to- - the only thing too, if somebody's like putting down to or can't right in front of the shop like you can clearly see like yeah, that's not supposed to talk with you purposes.
Speaker 5:
I would I.
Speaker 3:
Okay.
Speaker 1:
Alright. Well, you know, there are, there are natural ways to do things. I mean, product placement has to be naturally seen as far as I'm concerned but or else it's just bad. Well, I think that'll, if it becomes a long commercial then it's annoying and everyone knows it.
Speaker 3:
Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 5:
I was gonna say I have an idea and it's along the same lines of sponsorship. More than that, I constantly write grants, I've seen for instance, government agencies or philanthropies will say apply for this grant $200,000 to do an [UNINTELLIGIBLE] on sex trafficking. Similar idea, was to approach those funders and say don't get people to grant to, to stop. It's gonna take the money you gave me the $100,000 and I'll make you a film about sex trafficking that will really make a difference. So that was the type of approach that I was going to start looking into. So it's not quite I guess,sponsorship more than advertisement but getting somebody that wants to do this.
Speaker 1:
Yes.
Speaker 3:
Sure.
Speaker 5:
We'll get that mindset set away from grants towards film that was just...
Speaker 1:
You're talking about the people who, the funding agencies getting the mindset to get into funding, but aren't they already interested? I mean, I liked the idea but are they not interested? Isn't this like a,a 501(c)(3) issue where they have to give them money to certain kinds of things or...
Speaker 5:
Yeah, yeah. Some of them now some some grants obviously, such as for a university for research. No... Okay.
Speaker 1:
Some of them not I think that's a good approach. Yes, alright.
Speaker 5:
Yeah, so it was just an idea that I had kind of just changing that mindset of here's the money for an issue. Give me the money and I can get the issue addressed, you know, within a year to make a film, rather than a three year project that may yield some results. I know that was just, just an idea. I've been tinkering.
Speaker 3:
Uh-huh.
Speaker 1:
No, I think that's got some merit.
Speaker 1:
Go ahead [REDACTED]
Speaker 3:
I'm saying yeah, I like the idea because I know how it goes when the money gets allocated to people who really don’t do anything. And I think that a film, filmmaker makes a bigger difference than whatever they're doing because they take their money they're not actually going out and... you know. But they're not like going out and getting the traffickers and busting them and taking them to jail. They're just gonna know do some backyard project with the money. So, I think it's better to be spent on film because at least it can be, you know, more people will see it and be influenced by it.
Speaker 5:
Yup.
Speaker 1:
We have some, some small statistics but hard to come by on the long-term affect of branding for people who sponsor films that we can make available to you, with that kind of interest. You know, because we're obviously, with some of the projects that I won't mention that we're doing with product placement is very, very high on our list. And so we had to do these things but it's a question of branding, not marketing and I didn't really appreciate the difference between the two. I should say branding, not sales in you know,the long-term...
Speaker 5:
Oh, cool.
Speaker 5:
That'd be great. Yeah. To have that, if you would in mind. Yeah.
Speaker 1:
The profile of a product or a company or a sponsor is really enhanced and reinforced over decades by film. And, even if they pay what they think is a premium cost, it comes down to almost nothing over time. There's, you know, we've got films that are thirty and forty years old right now that people are still watching that have branding product placement in it. And you can't, you can't calculate the amount of money they would have had to pay if that branding effect were to be thought of beforehand. So I think that if we present... well I'll give you some of those.
Speaker 5:
Yeah.
Speaker 1:
That information because that might help you know", convince people of the importance of it," I think it is import.
Speaker 5:
Cool, thank you.
Speaker 2:
I'm wondering about branding ourselves as content creators. Like, is there a way that we can do that? I know you said it comes down to distribution and or funding and then also comes back to marketing and so what are the methods of marketing right now that aren't working? And what are some new ones that we could try to utilize beyond having a personal website or beyond having our own streaming platform or, or it would have come down to finding a comparable streaming platform or, or a distribution network like we were talking about before. I don't know if I'm clear on the question.
Speaker 1:
No, I'm not clear on your question.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, I'm just thinking, would, we as independent filmmakers have to do more selling without the traditional model.
Speaker 1:
I think so. I think so. When we say traditional model we, there, that's a loaded... Because the traditional model which I would say, the model that existed up until about 1984-85 was that we had to do a lot of promotion ourselves. I mean from the very beginning, you know, the road show the word, the phrase “road show” literally came from film. Where you would do a film and you went on the road with it, and you rented out places and you promoted that. And all the way up through you know, the rise of independent film in the sixties and seventies that was it. A film producer brought it to market. Roger Corman you know, did that with Shaft. Majors didn't do that, he did that and then...
Speaker 2:
There is no additional model, it's gone. Yeah.
Speaker 1:
The paradigm’s new again.
Speaker 2:
Well, there's an idea. I'm sorry. I got so as far as there is the idea that basically you get, you get like three or four filmmakers together and you basically organize your own little tour and, and yeah.
Speaker 1:
Yeah. You can do that, yeah, and that's people were doing that during COVID, you know, they would rent a parking lot and do a pop up theater, pop-up drive ins. There was one idea. But yeah, I think so, but what what people today call traditional is they just do a film and then they hand it off to distributor. That was not traditional, and that's also pathological, because as I said, in my view, business-wise pathological, because you lose control over your product and you should be selling that product. And if you're a producer, then you also need to make the money, you know. It's just part of the business of film producing and I honestly detest...
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:
...I am a writer director. I just want to write and direct I want to be on set. That's where my life wants to be. But the fact of the matter is this is a business, and I can't do that unless I sell my movies. And also you know I want people to see them so duh, you know. But, I think that again, that's the future, I think we're back to the days when we should get control. But, I think that's empowering because we then become more, at least in terms of our own brand, we become more sophisticated as to where our audience is and who we can make money with and entertain, right? But, but the other part of that, that's implied in your question is, is the concept of “brand” - and that's a whole other thing and you know, that you know, we're talking about that all the time. And you and the people that we deal with, in defining you know a brand you know with [REDACTED], we've got [REDACTED] as a brand.
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
Speaker 1:
And we're spending days, literally days between me and her talking about the images that associate with that brand, and how that relates to her as an individual. Because we, both of us believe that the audience, you know the market, connects with a human being. And I think the fashion industry knows that. Chanel for instance, you don't go out and buy a little black dress, you buy a Chanel dress. You don't go out and buy you know, perfume, you buy Chanel Number Five. There's Yves Saint Laurent, right? It's all associated with the person, right? And that association with that individual, I think creates the brand.
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm. Right.
Speaker 1:
I think that brand loyalty comes, and we see that in the comic book world, You know people love Frank Miller stuff or they love, you know I can't remember who wrote A Ghost In The Shell but they love his stuff, you know. And so, I think that in terms of brand we have the opportunity, because we have the freedom to reach the world, we have the opportunity to find a unique audience for us as individual producers, right? But that's a whole other topic.
Speaker 2:
Yeah. I think one more thing that has to change, too, is that we have to bust this idea that we have to go to festivals and get awards and then get discovered. And then magical things happen. I mean, I've been having this come up after a very long festival tour, [UNINTELLIGIBLE] my shorts, it's like, it'd be at the end of the day you've got is all these little trophies. No, [UNINTELLIGIBLE] but if you still have the solution, so I think there's a lot of, I think that model is still being pushed. As like, it's like the benchmark, you know you've got a good cast but you gotta get awards, you've gotta get discovered.
Speaker 2:
And I think that's a whole other thing too, and that you have to have a marketing plan for that, and you spending money chasing this little trophy when you could be, you know, hooking up the streaming platform and getting paid directly.
Speaker 1:
Right. Yeah, or marketing it to a paying audience. How much of that $5,000 promoting your short when you could have spent $3,000 in advertising and maybe, maybe paid for the short, I don't know. But I think part of that, part of that is the Hollywood dream thing that we as producers and directors and creators in the industry, I don't think we want to destroy that for the public. But we can't buy into it as, as the business people. Obviously, that's part of what attracted us to the industry. The glitz and glamour and all that stuff. And I think that is important to the public and to the long-term. So, I wouldn't want to destroy that but I completely agree with you, I mean, I don't do festivals.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:
For very specific reasons. I don't do contests because I think it's amateur. Like competitions and all sorts of other things, but there is a purpose for them, an industry purpose and also a public purpose. So. you know...
Speaker 2:
Yeah. Yeah. I think, oh, it's exciting to see all the laurels on the posters and saying, oh, yeah, there's- - I recently spoke a panel this year. Where they were asking me questions like, you know, how do you get your film into a festival, like what kind of films do you have to make? And my answer was you make it the best film it can possibly be, and who cares if you have to [UNINTELLIGIBLE], you know, you can make it and, and there’s no trick to it. It's just got to make it the best. And I mean on a certain level you can try to target festivals that might be more inclined towards your particular genre, but there is no, you know, just make it like the boss. Professional power.
Speaker 1:
Yeah.
Speaker 2:
You know, high level quality film that you can make.
Speaker 1:
And that sometimes works against you in a lot of festivals. If you look like you're successful at it through personal experience. Because they don't, they don't want to look at the slick film and you know I've had that experience on shows that I produced with bright up and coming directors who did it.
Speaker 2:
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:
Top notch job and then we're literally passed over for pieces of unbelievable awful crap because the festival assumes that there was somebody big behind it or because this person doesn't need the recognition or something like that. And that's just stupid because that's the person that you need to be promoting, right? But that's the way it is and also there's the politics of film festivals, which I won't get into because we're running out of time. But, you know, the story behind Blair Witch is very instructive. Okay, and you need to look up the name John Pearson and you know, understand the story behind how and why Blair Witch which got into Sundance and how...
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:
Because that's a piece of crap. I don't think anybody can really say anything otherwise, seriously, and that's not to say that people don't like it or shouldn't like or anything like that. But, they got into Sundance at a time- - it was shot on video- - at a time when they literally laughed people's asses off if you submitted something to them that wasn't shot on film. They didn't take anything that was not shot on film. That was part of the rules, and they didn't take anything without a director, that was part of the rules. And there's all sorts of rules. And you know the story that they quote unquote “discovered this submission." It was all behind the scenes beforehand with John Pearson and Artisan Entertainment, which is Lionsgate, and all that stuff. And the first so called viral ad campaign that cost them $4 million at the time. Just think how much that would cost today to create that quote unquote viral campaign. you know that phenomenon it was all...
Speaker 2:
Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:
...it was all coordinated. But that's the kind of thing that you face as a talented producer-director in an independent film fest. Because there are these groups. Lars Von Trier. Atom Egoyan in Canada. Now if you're, if you're not one of their friends, you're not getting an award that's serious and I grew up with that group so, anyhow...
Host:
I think we're out of time. We're going to continue this. I'd love to do it every couple of weeks but at least once a month. And expand into other areas but all related to how we as group of filmmakers, producers, streamers, can move forward individually, and as a private sector.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License
By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.
Section 1 – Definitions.
- Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.
- Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.
- Copyright and Similar Rights means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights.
- Effective Technological Measures means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements.
- Exceptions and Limitations means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.
- Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.
- Licensed Rights means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.
- Licensor means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License.
- NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.
- Share means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
- Sui Generis Database Rights means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world.
- You means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. Your has a corresponding meaning.
Section 2 – Scope.
- License grant.
- Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
- reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and
- produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only.
- Exceptions and Limitations. For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.
- Term. The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a).
- Media and formats; technical modifications allowed. The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material.
- Downstream recipients.
- Offer from the Licensor – Licensed Material. Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.
- No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.
- No endorsement. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).
Other rights.
- Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.
- Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.
- To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties, including when the Licensed Material is used other than for NonCommercial purposes.
Section 3 – License Conditions.
Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.
- Attribution.
- If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
- retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
- identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
- a copyright notice;
- a notice that refers to this Public License;
- a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
- a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; andindicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.
You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License.
Section 4 – Sui Generis Database Rights.
Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:
- for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database for NonCommercial purposes only;
- if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material; and
- You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.
- For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.
Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.
- Unless otherwise separately undertaken by the Licensor, to the extent possible, the Licensor offers the Licensed Material as-is and as-available, and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Licensed Material, whether express, implied, statutory, or other. This includes, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence or absence of errors, whether or not known or discoverable. Where disclaimers of warranties are not allowed in full or in part, this disclaimer may not apply to You.
- To the extent possible, in no event will the Licensor be liable to You on any legal theory (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise for any direct, special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, exemplary, or other losses, costs, expenses, or damages arising out of this Public License or use of the Licensed Material, even if the Licensor has been advised of the possibility of such losses, costs, expenses, or damages. Where a limitation of liability is not allowed in full or in part, this limitation may not apply to You.
- The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.
Section 6 – Term and Termination.
- This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically.
- Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates:
- automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or
- upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.
- For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License.
Section 7 – Other Terms and Conditions.
- The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
- Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.
Section 8 – Interpretation.
- For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.
- To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.
- No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.
- Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority.
- 2668 reads
