Will digital distribution be the savior of the independent film market? Steve Zeitchik sets out to explore this question, using indie producer Seth Caplan as a case study.  Caplan has produced numerous award-winning, festival screened features, but his only real financial success barely left the internet. “Flatland – The Movie,” a thirty minute animated featurette sold mainly via web streams, generated more profit than any of his other films due principally to a well-placed Google Ad.

With the advent of YouTube, distribution was democratized to the average Joe, but now its success is “trickling up.” Industry professionals, the big fish and the small, are increasingly taking advantage of all-access digital mediums.  But it’s those with limited resources, the indie players, who stand to gain the most. Where else but online could they reach so many people at so little cost?

Of course, this supposed Promised Land comes with a catch or two.  Many fear that, like in the digital music space, an “increased dependence on digital will mean similarly small profits and expectations.”  This has been the case so far for most films released digitally. However, theatrical avenues are drying up, and films are coming out of festivals without theatrical distribution, leaving filmmakers little choice but to turn to online.

Still, there are promising signs for those that take a strategic approach to digital. Major portals, including Amazon, Hulu, iTunes, and YouTube, now have their own indie businesses. Though the sites have yet to garner much revenue for filmmakers, they can cut out the middle-man, like they did for Seth Caplan. IndiePix president Bob Alexander elaborates:

“The problem with streaming is you need millions of views for what’s essentially a niche product…what streaming can do, however, is provide the visibility and platform to lead to transaction-based sales [i.e., dvd’s].”

[Disclaimer: Filmmakers Beware! To turn a profit this way, you can’t let your budget get away from you.  It’s more essential than ever to contain costs when margins are so low.]

As the way we consume media continues to evolve, streams and other online viewing have the potential to capture greater market share, so early adopters are well-positioned to benefit. But for now, caution is advised.

*Source: The Hollywood Reporter, “Clicking and Screaming”, pp 10-11, March 20, 2009, by Steven Zeitchik

To read the entire article, click here. (available only in plain text for non-subscribers)

The film and multimedia project The Black List is terrific idea.  It looks like it very nicely combines documentary filmmaking, social media/web 2.0, and good old fashioned brand building. You can catch the first film installment on HBO, if you did not see it at Sundance or SXSW.

Here is some background information:

The media coverage has been very positive and The Black List brand is being launched successfully. In addition to the film (and upcoming DVD), the book will soon be on sale.

To see a well-executed and multi-faceted campaign, take a look at their web presence and marketing:

• The Black List on Facebook
• The Black List on MySpace
• The Black List on YouTube
• Who’s on Your Blacklist http://www.whosonyourblacklist.com/
• The Black List Project http://www.blacklistproject.com/
• Their blog http://blpvideo.blogspot.com/

Here are some online and social network film marketing tactics that we think are very effective. It may help you and your team generate some additional marketing ideas.

Darfur Now Documentary
From Participant Productions:
http://prod.takepart.com/social_network/action/darfurnow/

Wal Mart Movie
This is Robert Greenwald’s film:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/

Four Eyed Monsters
Check out this post on our blog:
Four Eyed Monsters

MySpace examples
http://www.myspace.com/aninconvenienttruth?
http://www.myspace.com/climatecrisis

Facebook examples
http://www.facebook.com/pages/This-Darling-Life/14420535055

YouTube examples
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=oxfamamerica
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=milotube

Best of luck with your outreach efforts!

ENCHANTED ©Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. Photo Credit: BARRY WETCHER/SMPSP SUSAN SARANDON

Although written with a focus on talent endorsements, these guidelines are helpful in leveraging talent as a part of film promotions.

Do’s and Don’ts of Working with Celebrity Talent

By Lou Bortone

Top talent endorsements are a staple in marketing, with more than 20% of advertising today featuring a famous face, voice or likeness. The reason is clear: Celebrities sell. Consumers pay attention to brand-name talent because they are attracted to the familiar. Three ways a star spokesperson can be used by your business include:

1) Advertising – Celebrities can pitch your product via print, television, radio, etc.

2) Appearances and events – Celebrities can make personal appearances for your business at events ranging from charity fundraisers to grand openings.

3) Media opportunities – Your spokesperson can speak on your behalf on TV talks shows, or at press conferences, trade shows or other media events.

Things to keep in mind when hunting for a celebrity spokesperson include:

• Define your objectives

Determine what you expect from your partnership with your spokesperson and how to best utilize their talents. Clarify your needs and expectations from the get-go.

Get-It-Done: Brooks International and Burns are a couple of many agencies who specialize in booking celebrity and sports talent. These talent brokers can help you assess your needs.

• Find the right fit

It’s important that the spokesperson you hire is a good match for your product or service. The clearer the link between your company’s product and your talent, the better the partnership will work. (Think Michael Jordan and Nike!)

Get-It-Done: The Hollywood-Madison Group uses a proprietary database called the “Fame Index” to match businesses with appropriate talent. The Fame Index contains the names of 10,000 stars and uses 250 categories to match talent to businesses and products.

• Plan well in advance

When deciding on a celebrity spokesperson for your business, start early. Make your plans at least 6 months in advance. The bigger the name, the longer the lead time.

Get-It-Done: Celebrity Focus and The Celebrity Source are two talent agencies who can connect your company with talent and help you navigate the celebrity maze.

• Consider the costs

Talent fees and celebrity endorsements run the gamut from a few hundred dollars for a local DJ appearing at a business to literally millions of dollars for an international movie star. Catherine Zeta-Jones’ long-term endorsement deal with T-Mobile was reportedly worth 20 Million, but T-Mobile’s U.S. sales jumped 25% during the campaign.

Get-It-Done: If you’re looking for major star power, you can go with Hollywood biggies like William Morris or PMK/HBH Public Relations. On a smaller scale, many local celebrities can be contacted directly or through their management.

• Make contact

Talent agencies, entertainment marketing firms and even speakers bureaus can put you in touch with potential celebrity spokespersons. Contacting talent can be easier than you might think.

Get-It-Done: In addition to some of the agencies listed above, the Screen Actors Guild provides an actor-locator service.

Other things to keep in mind when shopping for a celebrity spokesperson include:

• Don’t be afraid to ask. Maybe that certain superstar is not out of your reach or budget.

• Consider “B-List” stars who may be more available and less expensive.

Local talent such as home-town athletes may be your best shot.

• Make sure you have an “out” clause in case your celebrity gets negative press or is involved in a scandal. (Sorry Britney!)

—

Lou Bortone is an award-winning writer, marketer and television producer who spent over 20 years in the television industry, including several years as Senior Vice President of Marketing & Advertising for Fox Family Worldwide in L.A. Today, Lou specializes in helping entrepreneurs create breakthrough video for the Internet. Email Lou at lou@theonlinevideoguy.com or visit http://www.theonlinevideoguy.com .

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

I recently came across Jim Hill’s blog about the Walt Disney Company (DIS).

Jim’s blog covers all aspects of the company, with additional perspective on the entertainment business.

Take a look at his most recent posts:

[kqf=1]

Readers of the Film Funding Blog often ask, “are studios and distributors spending marketing money wildly?” This really speaks to an underlying question, is theatrical distribution unprofitable for independent films?

To address this issue, I thought it might be helpful for me to contribute some perspective on the forces that can shape the P&A budget. My analysis is based on my years as a film distribution executive at Fox, Warner Bros., and New Line Cinema. I mention my background so that you can judge circumstances for yourself, without any undue spin.

(Photo by atp_tyreseus)

When a national theater chain decides to buy a picture, we usually consider that to be a good thing. But, one of two things may happen. First possibility is that the picture opens wide. This means that P&A is needed to support a large release (more prints, local newspapers, radio/TV, etc) and, before a single ticket is purchased, potentially millions of marketing dollars have been spent. If the film does not open well, the marketing spend will look hugely out of proportion to the results. Unfortunately, the final outcome is only knowable after most of the money has been spent.

Alternatively, it is possible to “platform” a film release. However, this usually works best in cases where you think the word of mouth will be very strong. Problem with a platform release is that you may never get a chance to open wider. Your theatrical distribution costs are lower, and your theatrical release may be profitable on a percentage basis, but you could wind up leaving millions in profit on the table.

Given the chance to open on say 500 screens (still far from a mega release), and a platform (2-20 screens), most people will choose to open wider because the revenue and profit tend to be higher (higher risk/higher return). Also, if a theater chain offers a wider release, if you suggest a smaller one you may be signaling a lack of faith in the motion picture.

Usually, as a producer/financier, you have almost no control over how the picture rolls out. Even if you pay the P&A cost, you are at the whims of the marketplace (actually, you are just facing more powerful players with stronger leverage). This means that your distribution strategy faces a complex set of dynamics, and you are forced to play the hand you are dealt.

As a footnote, the advertising for domestic releases is also tracked by the video retailers. They know that if the film did not have much market support, there is unlikely to be much awareness. This can limit the DVD sales.

There can be more upward pressure on a film’s marketing spend. Other ancillary markets (like airline sales) are frequently pegged to the US Box Office. It can often pay to buy a larger box office opening by spending more on theatrical marketing. Theatrical will run at a loss, but the goal is to build profit from DVD, television, and other distribution channels.

I would say that the typical film does not break even from theatrical. Even the most successful independent releases make only a very small profit from theaters. Could the marketing money be better spent? There is always the old adage that half the marketing budget fails to produce the desired result. It just isn’t that easy to figure out which half. Theatrical is not always a money loser, but it does tend to be a loss-leader.

Movie Marketing Madness is a blog with great insights into the Hollywood marketing machine:

[kqf=2]

As this press release from 99 Ways Entertainment demonstrates, you have to think creatively if you want to raise film financing.

To get its own stories distributed 99 Ways has brought together a dynamic mix of music and film stars together with creative financing by NBA players, doing an end run around the traditional channel of seeking pick up by a separate film distribution company. Its first feature-length docudrama, Gangstresses, starring singers Mary J. Blige and Lil’ Kim, was produced for $25,000. Released straight-to-video, it spent 12 weeks on Billboard’s Top 40 Video Sales, earning revenues in excess of $1 million and garnering the Independent Film Project (IFP) Best Directorial Debut award for Davis. Six years later the film, which was also featured in pop culture venues such as BET, The Source and Interview Magazine, is still selling in the U.S. and internationally.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070206/nytu064.html?.v=75

What was the most profitable film release of 2006? It all depends on how you measure profit.

As the blog BizofShowbiz reports:

In the category of the most widely released movies for 2006, the most profitable movie of the year was surprisingly “Ice Age: The Meltdown,” which beat out what most thought would be the leader “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.”

http://www.bizofshowbiz.com/2007/01/ice_age_most_profitable_film_of_2006.html

This is based on the 2006 Kagan Profitability Report that the Holllywood Reporter’s Paul Bond discusses in his recent article. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070119/media_nm/profits_dc_1

While Kagan does a great job with their profitability index, they exclude several key elements of production cost (because they are extremely difficult to estimate.) Distribution fees, profit participations (points), overhead allocations, and the cost of financing (interest charges) do not make it into Kagan’s calculations.

Based on the gross profit percentage, it is likely that Little Miss Sunshine would take the crown. However, if we look at total profit in dollar terms, I have no doubt that Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest would be ranked first. With 15.1 million units of DVD sold and box office of over $400 million in the U.S. alone, the revenues were tremendous. While the participations and residuals were no doubt costly, the profitability of DVD would propel this title ahead of the others.

The truly interesting question is to look at the profitability of a film like this from different perspectives. The profit picture for the studio (Walt Disney Company: DIS), is very different from that of the other profit participants (such as the key talent or the film’s producers.) One difference is that Disney earns a distribution fee and receives the overhead allocations, adding revenues to its coffers. On the other side of the ledger, these items are costs to the profit participants.