Self-distributing an indie feature
Todd Sklar, who I know from his work up at the Sundance Labs, wrote in to agree with a lot of the points I raised in my post-mortem of The Nines. His experience with the indie film he made and self-released is alternately inspiring and exhausting, but worth careful attention for anyone considering making a festival feature.
They basically treated their indie film like an indie band, going gig to gig and selling out of the back of their car. It worked, more or less, but it demanded an amazing amount of chutzpah and commitment, which not all filmmakers are going to be able to muster.
While I was at the labs, I was in the midst of making a low budget feature, which I’ve now completed, and also self-distributed throughout 34 markets.
Along with some of my cast and crew, I accompanied the film on the road for 3 months in order to help market the film in each city. We basically set the whole thing up like a band would do for a tour, supplementing the screenings with intensive grass-roots marketing and also using social networking sites to create a viral buzz prior to our arrival.
Our entire model was conceived around the concept of using the theatrical release as a tool for the ancillary benefits it can provide: building a fan-base for future projects, acting as a platform and catalyst for DVD and download releases, and providing a ton of press exposure and validation for the film to name a few.
As such, our overall goal for the tour was to break even. We felt that if we could sustain the touring of the film for the entire 3 and half month tour, the real reward would be the opportunities that would develop by maintaining the film’s limited theatrical life for as long as possible, and in as many different places as possible. I compare it a lot to when companies will build a brand, in order to create a name for themselves amongst their target audience, or when a politician will it the road to raise awareness of his campaign.
In the end, we sold a little over 9,600 tickets, as well as 800+ DVDs, despite only having them available at the last 11 screenings.
We split our ticket sales directly with the theatres, and used niche-oriented marketing to keep promotional costs down, and in the end, we grossed around $32,000 theatrically. After factoring in all the expenses, we found ourselves with a profit near $11,000. As a result, we’ll be touring again in the fall & spring, while also bringing a handful of other films with us in an attempt to make this a repeatable and sustainable distribution model.
You can check out more info on the film here; www.boxeldermovie.com. Plus there’s more verbiage on the aforementioned self-distribution stuff if you’re intrigued. We’re creating a postmortem document similar to your blog post in regards to the tour.
Again, excellent post and viewpoint on the matter, and thanks again for all that you do.
31 Responses to “Self-distributing an indie feature”
Leave a Reply
RSS feed for comments on this article.
Get a Gravatar. They're free and work on lots of different sites.
July 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
What I find interesting about Todd’s self-distribution model is that he’s planning to go out again in the fall and the spring, presumably with the same film. I was wondering: is there a point where it’s not worth it to make the effort “tour” the film theatrically and, like most major releases, just let the DVD release take over as the main way to distribute the film? Also, will he re-visit the same cities he went to the first time (where I imagine attendance might drop off in relation to the previous tour), or to new cities? Would it be worth it to go back to the places where DVDs were already sold?
July 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Todd and Co. are on the right track. A bit of wisdom that was passed along to me a few years (and movies) back from a high-end entertainment lawyer who was nice enough to take me under his wing:
There no point in starting your first movie unless you’re committed to finishing your third.
My own experience is that this is absolutely true, and chances are Todd & Co will see a meaningful return on their investment. All they have to do is make two more great movies!
July 7th, 2008 at 12:38 am
i completely agree with all said here; Once the movie s out , you HAVE to market it over and over I found often that filmmakers spend a dreadfull amount of time & energy making their indie feature then submit it to barely half a dozen festival, re lease a few dvds to the shop tender they befriended with
and wait.
and wait.
and surrender.
I mean, the fact that your movie doesnt sell in a flash, or that your wonderfull website & forum based viral campain dont boost the dvd sales count to 5 figures doesnt mean the movie is bad. it just means this market is huge and overflooded at the same time.
I sometime discover kick ass indie films by complete chance and wonder why this thing wasnt marketed more till it got my attention before it s discounted
So if you feel your product deserve it, just keep marketing the damn thing over and over till it hooks the right personn, the right time, the right buzz, before getting back to your chair thinking “this next one I ll do better”
July 7th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Self-distribution sounds like the way to go for such a small movie, but I would think it would be hard for a lot of people to tour with their film even if it’s the best thing you could do. Even so, without touring there are still some points to be taken from this. One thing I don’t see, on their website there is no where to buy the movie. I wonder why that is? If you have the dvd already and are selling it at screenings, then not sell it on your site? It could only add to the bottom line. Also, I wonder if they collect emails. That would be a key part in keeping there fans in the know and maybe down the line they could be used as investors or it could be used to give info out about their next project.
July 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am
It would have been so much easier to just make a commerical film with name talent in it. It’s really easy to get direct to DVD distribution - but I suppose people will continue to make art films with no commercial appeal, no recognizable talent, and no intended market.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
This is interesting, I was wondering if anybody did this with their movies because coming from a hip-hop background I know a lot of musicians that sell their cds from the trunk of the car basically.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I’m in the midst of finishing my first no budget feature, and self promotion is all we can do. While its an independent production, by no means does that make it “art house” fair.
Been doing an homage to 80s action comedies like Death Wish 3/Cobra and it is working out great with no budget, no real crew and no name actors. For some of us, while money would obviously be great, it is by no means expected by any of us working on it. We are just doing it to show off our skills and try to get people to laugh.
Self distribution is how we will go about it when its finished, possibly even doing a live premier on the web after promoting it.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
How about this as a business model:
Throwing in trailers on Youtube as well.
If the thought is to truly model a musical act, doesn’t the CD and and pirating come first, then the tour?
-Tom
July 7th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
What about going to HBO, Showtime, Sundance Channel, TNT, etc? In other words, is there any reason to completely avoid Hollywood altogether just because the theatrical prospects aren’t great?
July 7th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
@ Tom Maguire:
“How about this as a business model:
How about making it available through a dozen or so sites that pay - but also attaching sponsorship advertising? That way you can tally the #’s and charge the advertiser accordingly….
Netflix requires that you have a DVD distributor, but you could easily set up a store on Createspace (part of Amazon) and not have to replicate any DVDs beforehand.
Use http://www.withoutabox.com to coordinate the marketing - you get enough of a response in a city, then they arrange the screening. It’s almost like Theatrical-On-Demand….
You can add:
A Cafepress store to sell t-shirts, and other relevant merchandise.
Create widgets to advertise your film on Facebook and Myspace.
Create a Facebook group.
Start a Twitter / Tumblr feed so people can follow you around the country.
Build a forum/ blog / chat room — all for free — so that you can share elements of the film that will appeal to different segments of the audience. Organize live chats to have an online Q&A. Organize all your blog posts regarding the film into a handy dandy book / manual for the Indie filmmaker. Publish it yourself via Createspace.
Start a podcast for free via Blogtalkradio.com
and much, much more…..
July 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
You don’t need a distributor to put your film on Net Flix. If it’s on a stamped DVD, and it doesn’t suck (much) they’re happy to have it.
July 7th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
@Adamo: “It’s really easy to get direct to DVD distribution”
Wow. Where do I start? How about with: No, no it’s not. Not in general, not even with a name above the title. You’re welcome to try, of course, but it’s not 1995, anymore, and it’s not really easy to get any kind of distribution, “even” DVD.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Indeed, filmmakers will now have to continue to work after having finished the film, to market it and to promote it. It is a new matter for them, and it is not easy for a film maker to get involved so deeply and so directlyin the release of his film…
At UbicMedia, we firmly believe that the Internet is now the most efficient channel to market and distribute indie movies. We also believe that, on the Internet infratructure, peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent, Limewire, eMule are very useful to broadcast a film worldwide at a very low cost.
Here you have 2 examples of French indie films (a documentary and a feature) self-distributed by their producers, who have made their very simple VOD service using Paypal : - http://www.largowinch-ledoc.com (French version on this site, the English subtitle edition is available, ask if you really want to see it) - http://www.lereveildesgolems.com (French version only…)
July 8th, 2008 at 12:06 am
The documentary about “Largo Winch” comic, with English subtitles, is here : http://clients.ubicmedia.com/KanariFilms/indexEN.html
July 8th, 2008 at 8:42 am
S,
I did try. Look me up. I know of what I speak.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Todd should make a documentary about his tour (maybe he already is) and then distribute that along with his film(s) if he continues along this track. The documentary “American Movie” followed around filmmakers who are probably less savvy than Todd and his crew and it was fascinating.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I applaud Todd Sklar for getting out there with his film and promoting it and making that work and I wish him the very best. Filmmakers do what they have to do and he deserves success for his work in getting the film out there and making it happen for himself.
But for most filmmakers this is not going to be a sustainable way to work. I honestly can’t see it as a positive way forward for indie film.
Making films is getting cheaper. Distributing them is getting more and more complex in a flooded market. More and more of the marketing and distribution of films is getting shoved back onto the directors and producers to manage. It’s time consuming and limits the amount of actual new filmmaking that people can move onto.
The distribution model needs to change. It’s clearly not working for anyone. Most of all it’s not working for the consumers.
I think one of the solutions to indie film distribution problems could be the indie festivals themselves. If Sundance (and other fests) had pay per view online for their features as part of the festival, the buzz about the films would be much bigger and they’d reach a wider audience immediately.
And if the pay per view was a limited time period either during or tailing after the festival, it shouldn’t interfere too much with any box office on the theatrical release.. might even provide a significant boost to it. All the paperwork could be part of the festival entry paperwork.
Sundance already have iTunes and Netflix in place for the shorts so why not the features too?
I think internet alone won’t do it for indie film. I think films need the additional platform and buzz of festivals like Sundance, to really boost internet as a viable market that people pay attention to and that helps envigour theatrical release. And that needs to be while the festivals are going on and the films are hot stuff. Not after the buzz has cooled.
The Nines is a classic example. There was buzz during Sundance and I wanted to see it but it wasn’t available. By the time it was the urgency had rubbed off… it’s on my cable pay per view now and I’ve still ignored it, in favour of going out to see the Summer Blockbusters.. because the buzz for them is happening now and I want to see them and talk about them while they’re hot news and all my friends are discussing them.
UK indie film festival Raindance have launched raindance.tv to showcase thier festival features and shorts and I think that’s a big step in the right direction. But perhaps it doesn’t go the full way to the crucial step of being able to view films while the festival buzz is hottest.. and to me, the festivals could be doing a lot more to help boost themselves and their filmmakers.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Tony Comstock,
What is this method you speak of for getting a “stamped DVD” onto Netflix? I’ve been digging around for a while now and I can’t figure out how to get my award-winning indie feature, Yellow Lights, onto Netflix or Blockbuster Online. I’d definitely appreciate any ideas you have.
Kevin Tostado kevin(at)yellowlightsmovie(dot)com
July 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Heyyyyyy!!!!
My apologies for delays to these awesome responses. First and foremost, thanks for reading and commenting on our story, we appreciate your time and thoughts. Secondly, i’m gonna do my best to do a quick run through and reply to some of the comments on here;
There’s most definitely a time when it becomes more ideal to let DVD sales take over, however that “tipping point” is different for each film, and more-over, different for each distribution model. A lot of smaller distribution companies will do a 3-4 market theatrical release just to garner enough press/exposure to market a DVD release down the line. Alternately, some films/companies will try to sustain the theatrical life of the film for as long as possible, as it means more overall exposure, which can lead to more overall DVD sales. Neither model is perfect, nor are the many other models that have been tested out, but for our specific film, touring is primarily a way for us to raise awareness of the film in as many markets as possible, and in the most efficient way possible. We’ve never taken out a TV or newspaper ad or paid for any sort publicity, so the grass roots marketing we do in each market is our only way to raise exposure for the film, and our only way to effectively do that marketing is with an event-based screening. Another way of looking at it would be budgeting your p & a expenses at about $500 per market. For that $500, you can either take out one single quarter page ad in a local print/paper, or you can feed & house 5 dudes who are gonna run around handing out marketing & merchandise materials, while also talking to as many people as possible during that week leading up to the screening. Again, neither model is perfect, but i’d rather do the dirty work myself than hope that people read the back page of the Fort Collins Daily Gazette and catch an ad about our film. I think DVD is best executed after you’ve done a strong enough theatrical release to support your DVD campaign under the pretense that you’re not going to get any P & A from your DVD distributor. If you do get some, then that’s great, more fuel to the fire, but for our case, and again, this is the control freak in me, but i’d rather know that my marketing campaign leading up to the DVD release was strong enough to support some sales/relevancy.
In response to your 2nd question about double-dipping; yes we will be going back to some of the same markets, but only because we were invited back, and want to maintain a good relationship with the theatrical network we’ve setup from our spring tour. Also, we feel that attendance shouldn’t drop off, since our marketing is so niche oriented that we should be able to pack the house regardless of the circumstances. Extrapolating on that a bit, a single night screening might garner 100 people on a good night. It is certainly possible that there are only 100 people or so in each market that will wanna see the film, but we feel it’s a lot more likely that if you do the marketing right, and the film is good enough, there’s a much larger amount of people who will want to see it, and it’s more of a numbers game. I.E, 10-15% of the people you connect with will show up. A good case study for this would be our two trips to Austin on the last tour. We had almost identical numbers both nights (which were about a month apart from each other), but the audience make-up was completely different, as the first screening was mostly people we contacted through our social network, and the 2nd screening was largely dominated by people who heard about it from our campus outreach. Again, if the film is good enough and the marketing plan is strong enough, double dipping shouldn’t an issue.
I’m gonna try to reply to the other ones next, but I got some other fish to fry also tonight, so I may fall off after a bit.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
There no point in starting your first movie unless you’re committed to finishing your third.
My own experience is that this is absolutely true, and chances are Todd & Co will see a meaningful return on their investment. All they have to do is make two more great movies!”
I couldn’t agree more with that. Maybe it’s from growing up on iMBD and recognizing a writer or director’s catalog versus their singular works, but I’ve always envisioned each film as a logical progression towards making each aspect of the next one better. This is why the touring platform was so important in regards to conceiving the film’s distribution as a brand-building platform. By going to each of those markets, we began building an audience for films #2 and #3. We also began building contacts for films #2 and #3, and began showing financial return so that we can keep our financing for films #2 and #3. And the list goes one. The only downside to this type of model being that while your doing all the aforementioned work, you’re not writing films #2 and #3. In fact, you’re not even checking johnaugust.com on a daily basis trying to figure out how to write films #2 and #3. That’s the one thing I’d do differently next time; spend more time writing before getting into a long-term campaign like this. That said, the entire nature of our film’s production and this distribution model in general are so timely that if I waited another year or so to begin executing the plan, the climate would be completely different, and who knows what would happen.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
and wait.
and wait.
and surrender.
I mean, the fact that your movie doesnt sell in a flash, or that your wonderfull website & forum based viral campain dont boost the dvd sales count to 5 figures doesnt mean the movie is bad. it just means this market is huge and overflooded at the same time.
I sometime discover kick ass indie films by complete chance and wonder why this thing wasnt marketed more till it got my attention before it s discounted
So if you feel your product deserve it, just keep marketing the damn thing over and over till it hooks the right personn, the right time, the right buzz, before getting back to your chair thinking “this next one I ll do betterâ€?”
Yes! This pretty much matches my attitude on the matter. If you’re willing to spend the better part of a few years making an independent film, how on earth could you not spend the necessary time to release and market it. Granted, it is an unbelievable amount of work to do so, but still, it’s an integral part of the process, and anyone who’s made a film should be accustomed to endless hard work, otherwise you’re doing something wrong. I’ll be the first to admit, making Box Elder was the greatest time i’ve had in my entire life, and there wasn’t a moment where I didn’t feel like we were kings of Spain during production, but it was an enormous undertaking, and one that I wouldn’t have been able to justify if I didn’t have a solid exit-plan for after it was finished.
Ex. What if a car manufacturer drew up a design, ordered all the parts, constructed the automobile, and then just left the finished product in a parking lot hoping someone would come along and buy it? Worse yet, what if they EXPECTED someone to buy it, and then got depressed when no one did? You have to do some testing, and marketing, and negotiating in order to get your product out there and make sure that people know about it. And you should do some of, or at least consider some of that work in the very beginning stages of the process. That’s how they do it in Hollywood right? They pass on film’s all the time because they’re unmarketable. I personally think that nothing in this world is unmarketable, and therefore it becomes the job of the filmmaker to figure out his/her market ahead of time, that way they can ensure the film makes it’s way into the world. Not considering all of this stuff in the planning phase of your film is an unfinished job in my book, and a recipe for failure and disappointment. If something miraculously happens and you don’t need to be involved in the marketing and distribution of your film, then that’s great too, but unlikely. You most likely wouldn’t start a trip without knowing your destination, and your film’s shelf-life should be considered the same way. I’m not saying you shouldn’t make a film unless it’s marketable, I’m just saying you should figure out your market before you make your film. If you wanna make a movie about the Portuguese Banana fig, go right ahead, just make sure you figure out how to connect with an audience who is gonna care about that subject matter (and they’re out there, I promise you).
If the filmmaking/storytelling is good enough, then it will surely transcend that original niche audience. Look at March of the Penguins as an example. More than just penguin enthusiasts connected with that film, but it had to start it’s run with a niche audience who connected with it for whatever reason before it could make it to the multiplexes.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
The touring model is certainly not ideal for all films/filmmakers, but does specifically fits this film in it’s content as well as the marketing platform we came up with for it’s release. I would guess that almost every film has a specific release model that fits it best. For instance, look at what B-Side & Netflix did with Super High Me as an example. There’s almost unarguably no better way to strategically distribute that film. Also, you could look at the latest Indiana Jones film as an example of a big budget film with a site specific release model, as it’s Cannes premiere was most likely to ensure strong foreign sales in case the film tanked during it’s US run (much like The Golden Compass). Even the big guys think strategically about their release models.
Re: the DVD’s not being available on the website. We’re not selling the DVD’s online because we’re currently still negotiating some of our music clearances for a wider DVD release in the fall, and we don’t want to sell DVD’s containing temp music in the interim. Actually, to be more specific, I don’t wanna sell DVD’s that contain temp tracks, and since I’m the majority owner in the film still, I can be a pretentious filmmaker and ensure that people see the film the way it was meant to be seen. With good music, not cheap traxx. That said, my investors support me on this issue 100%, since the film has a pretty badass soundtrack, and it plays an integral part in the overall tone of the story.
Lastly, we haven’t been collecting emails, but instead have been collecting a strong following on the Facebook, since it plays such an integral part in our marketing process. Our view on this aspect is basically; we’d rather have 1,000 die hard supporters who’ve pledged their allegiance to the film, rather than 5,000 email addresses that may or may not be responsive. We like the “keeping it in the family approach”, rather than the “collect as much as you can” approach, since our time is extremely valuable due to the grass-roots nature of our model, and therefore our efforts have to be that much more focused and efficient. I think collecting emails is a great tool though, we just like having our select audience that we can easily communicate with. Check ‘em out at; http://www.facebook.com/pages/Box-Elder/11987386116
July 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
First off, yes, it would’ve been much much easier to make a commercial film with name talent in it, and yes, doing so would’ve certainly guaranteed some sort of output deal, whether it be on DVD or in foreign markets. If storytelling is not your primary focus, then getting name talent is without question the most important factor in structuring a release. That said, my film’s entire conception and production was catered around the storytelling, and I chose to utilize actors with a strong suit for naturalism and improvisation, rather than creating composite characters for a name actor to integrate their own persona into. Think Christian Bale circa American Psycho versus Samuel Jackson circa Every Movie He’s Been In. Interestingly enough, the sole reason for that choice was due to our film not being an “art film”. It’s coming of age story centered around 4 dudes in college, and aside from some French New Wave references, it’s a pretty straightforward and conventional comedy. Thus, with the wrong actors involved, it could’ve very well turned into American Pie 4, which is why it was so important that all of our pieces fit the overall themes and tone of the storytelling. Maybe a better way of explaining this would be that we got away with making a dialog driven college comedy under the guise of an independent film by using good unknown actors. I.E, the film wasn’t low brow enough to be American Pie 4, but also isn’t complex enough to be Memento, so we had to make everything fit the circumstances of the storytelling. Actually, the best way to express what I’m getting here is to just have you watch the film. Email our producer Steve Japan @ stevejapan4@gmail.com and we’ll figure something out. And that goes for anybody who’s interested really.
Secondly, as you mentioned, it is somewhat easy to get direct to DVD distribution, however, some filmmakers may not want to settle for direct to DVD distribution. Some of them might not want to even settle for limited theatrical distribution. Sky’s the limit really, and it all depends on what you want for your film and for you as a filmmaker. I personally didn’t think a direct to DVD deal would be the best way to progress my career, and I also felt like our film deserved better than to be potentially mis-marketed or under-released. I should mention, the first investor I got on the film was via a direct to DVD offer that we subsequently turned down, but having it on the table was enough to attract an investor, so I’m privy to the way that game is played. Different strokes for different folks though. In all honesty, you could probably make 3 direct to DVD films with name talent in the time it takes me to make and distribute 1. But it’s not a competition. It’s a storytelling medium. So I’d gladly root you on as your made those 3 direct to DVD films, and pending the content and availability, I’d probably rent/watch/buy one or all of your films.
Lastly, “no intended market”. Did you read the original post? The entire distribution model was conceived around the film’s intended market.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Nice. I think it’ll become a little more prevalent with movies now that new technology has created a surplus of content, which has been the case for the music industry for quite some time.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Barry - Your film sounds awesome, and power to ya for self distributing it. There’s obviously a market for those films, so there’ll likely be a market for yours as well.
Tom - That’s a pretty good release model right there. Now you just gotta strategize when each component should be executed and you’ve got yourself a nice release platform.
Paula Puryear “What about going to HBO, Showtime, Sundance Channel, TNT, etc? In other words, is there any reason to completely avoid Hollywood altogether just because the theatrical prospects aren’t great?”
First, avoiding Hollywood is not part of our platform, and is likekly a bad idea for anyone trying to make headway in this industry. That said, the current distrobution model for an independant film is more-less broken, so alternative methods of distrobution are a potential solution.
Secondly, securing a TV release with any of the aforementioned channels are a large part of our plan (and the primary reason I was in LA last week). TV rights are just one of the elements you can leverage while preparing a release strategy. Downloads, Foreign Markets, and Corporate Sponsorships are a few other ones to consider. Securing a good sales rep or attaining a theatrical release are two strong ways to secure a good output deal for this stuff, but if the film/content is good enough and/or marketable enough, you’ll be able to find someone to release it on TV/On-Line/Etc. eventually. The hard part is getting people to watch it. Again, marketing and exposure are the integral aspects.
Sidednote: I’m starting to fade, might come back for the rest this weekend.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:56 am
July 12th, 2008 at 1:03 am
“Todd should make a documentary about his tour (maybe he already is) and then distribute that along with his film(s) if he continues along this track. The documentary “American Movieâ€? followed around filmmakers who are probably less savvy than Todd and his crew and it was fascinating.”
Good call. We’re working on a 50 minute piece from the spring tour to go on the Box Elder DVD. And we wanna make a full length for this upcoming tour. That said, I don’t know if anything we did on tour was more fascinating than Mike Schank; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAbno9zroXo “does everyone have brown gloves” gets me everytime.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:36 am
You make a valid point about the workload involved with the model we chose, and you also make a good point about the festival model not being conducive to an efficient release strategy. I don’t know if on-line viewing however is the ideal solution. Festivals essentially exist as curators of content, not distributors of content, so although I’m all for releasing all of those films on-line at the time of their highest appeal, it’s more likely that a buyer/studio would be more interested in trying to create more appeal when the film makes it’s theatrical release.
Re: the shorts being available on iTunes. This was done through an on-line aggregator (Mediastile to be specific), and they were able to broker deals with the shorts filmmakers because there’s essentially no market for short films post film festivals. Having you’re on-line release the week of the festival doesn’t hurt your ability to secure a future theatrical release, or a TV deal, or a DVD release, etc. When it comes to features, there’s a massive marketplace for content, and thus, there is a lot of strategy and resource involved with the sale and release of a feature film. Until people start buying content on-line (and it’s important to differentiate b/w “buying” and “viewing”), there won’t be a legitimate marketplace for festival features on-line that can compete with the other avenues of release (Theatrical, DVD, etc), and therefore, it will remain tougher for a film (especially one with studio elements involved) to make an on-line release the focal point of it’s distribution. I do think however that we are moving slowly towards a model that at least considers that to be an integral part of a film’s release, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that Amazon or Netflix will figure out a way to at least start catalyzing that process.
All that aside, I do think that you’re dead on about festivals not being able to harness and utilize buzz in the most effective manner towards the films they program. However, that’s not a their job, it’s the job of the marketing and sales team behind the film’s themselves, and that is where the greatest weakness in the system and current model are in my humble opinion. I strongly think the biggest deficiency in the entire industry is in the marketing aspects of the release platform. There’s a good amount of strategy involved within the development, production, and distribution processes, and yet very little adaptation in the marketing approaches for most festival films. At the actual festivals, there’s plenty of guerrilla marketing going on, but when the film is released theatrically, it’s a different story. Thisis primarily because it’d be impossible to create and support a strategic marketing campaign for a film that’s being released in hundreds of places for hundreds of screenings, OR it wouldn’t be worth the time or money to develop and support a strategic marketing campaign for a film that’s only being released in a few theaters for a few screenings. This is essentially why we’ve settled into a platform release model where strong performance in peak markets can garner extended runs. Bringing it back full circle, a lot of the reason I took the approach I did with a touring model was because we could sustain a more focused and limited marketing approach to event based screenings in several markets. Again, I’m not saying that’s the solution for every film, I’m just saying it was the solution for ours.
…and now I really gotta get back to planning our fall tour otherwise we’re gonna stuck like everyone else looking for distribution. Thx for your thoughts and comments, i’ll check back to finish up in a few days.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Todd, thanks so much for your reply(s). Gives me a lot to think about.
Just to clarify, I’m not suggesting festivals turn distributor and you’re right, it’s not their job to.
It IS their job to be an effective platform for indie film though. I’m suggesting a wider and more global festival screening platform than they currently employ. And for a very limited time period only.
Yes.. for it to work people would have to buy the film online. Even if it’s at the same price they’d pay to see it in a theatre. And I bet millions like me would be more than happy to do so.
It may be the job of the marketing and sales team behind films to promote and exploit festival entries but that’s no excuse for the festivals to be passive.
Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree and of course it’s easier to chuck ideas onto a blog than to make them into a workable model for indie film festivals but I’d like to see a trial of it with a few willing festival films. I think the results would speak volumes.
Either way I think things are not working and need to change radically and we need to keep talking about and looking for new and sustainable ways forward that allow filmmakers to just make films… that’s all they really want to have to do.
I applaud you for your grass roots approach. It makes a lot of sense when you talk about that kind of active rather than passive way of advertising and it seems to be working for your film. I really hope that it pays off to the extent that six or seven years down the line you’re not still having to do it.
I’ll be attempting to get to see the film somehow (I’m in the UK and PAL land so I’ll email and see what can be done but until it’s online I may not get to it) and I’ll be joining the facebook family and keeping a close eye on how it works out for you. I wish you much success.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
CONGRATS TODD AND GOOD LUCK WITH THE NEXT TOUR!! Remember…that’s pretty much how the Weinsteins began. So maybe your calling is not to be a filmmaker, per se, but…an indie studio head?
You obviously have a lot of business savvy, don’t discount it. At the least, if you keep developing your distribution model over the next few years, you’ll have money to make more films of your own. Okay, couple questions if I may…
-Was the title of your college comedy “Box Elder” in any way inspired by “Van Wilder?” Is Box Elder the name of your Protagonist or something else in the film?
-Your film (well, the trailer) reminds me of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” another ensemble comedy with unknowns that sprung from a DIY production. The show is hilarious, have you seen it or maybe met those guys?
-Going off of Leilani’s idea, what if a new Sundance film premiered online for a short window, say 6 hours or maybe a week, concurrently with the Sundance premiere? Then Sundance could also stream the after-screening Q&A sessions with the filmmakers and take questions from the web?
-I’d love to help promote your film and next tour via our site and screenwriter’s group, The Writers’ Building, if you’re interested? There’s a link to our home page on my name, above. Leilani Holmes is also a member. We’re working on a live event in L.A. in the Fall if you’ll be in town.
good luck, brohamonrye,
Dan C. dan(at)thewritersbuilding(dot)org
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
Fay Ann Lee is also having some good success marketing her indie film “Falling For Grace” by arranging showings at indie theaters, and traveling with the film. (I’m going to see her film (and her) this afternoon. Follow the link below for an interview with her in the Des Moines Register regarding the Des Moines screening:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080801/LIFE/808010343/-1/THEMES
Mark