CwF + RtB For Filmmakers (Part 6 of 6)

This is an article in a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read all the articles in this series by clicking here.

CwF + RtB FOR FILMMAKERS
A lot of film people address parts of the CwF + RtB equation but not the whole equation comprehensively. Mike Masnick does a wonderful job explaining the equation's fundamentals in the concluding article of his series, The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics of Free. Masnick lists four steps with examples from the music industry:

1. Redefine the market: The benefit is musical enjoyment
   
2. Break the benefits down: (not a complete list...) Infinite components: the music itself. Scarce components: access to the musicians, concert tickets, merchandise, creation of new songs, CDs, private concerts, backstage passes, time, anyone's attention, etc. etc. etc.
   
3. Set the infinite components free: Put them on websites, file sharing networks, BitTorrent, social network sites wherever you can, while promoting the free songs and getting more publicity for the band itself—all of which increases the value for the final step
   
4. Charge for the scarce components: Concert tickets are more valuable. Access to the band is more valuable. Getting the band to write a special song (sponsorship?) is more valuable. Merchandise is more valuable.

If we applied these steps to filmmaking, the results wouldn't be that much different:

1. Redefine the market: The benefit is musical cinematic narrative enjoyment
   
2. Break the benefits down: (not a complete list...) Infinite components: the music story itself. Scarce components: access to the musicians filmmakers, concert tickets theatrical showings, Q&A with the filmmakers, merchandise, creation of new songs films, CDs DVDs, private concerts screenings, backstage on set passes, time, anyone's attention, etc. etc. etc.
   
3. Set the infinite components free: Put them on websites, file sharing networks, BitTorrent, social network sites wherever you can, while promoting the free songs films and getting more publicity for the band itself film company—all of which increases the value for the final step
   
4. Charge for the scarce components: Concert tickets theatrical showings (actually, the true equivalent here is a Q&A with the filmmakers) are more valuable. Access to the band filmmakers is more valuable. Getting the band filmmakers to write a special song shoot a short webisode (sponsorship?) is more valuable. Merchandise is more valuable.

Using this approach for films and skillfully blending it with Kevin Kelly's generatives is the next logical step; below is a first pass at how generatives might be applied to create value for films. One size does not fit all here—the final phase would be a much deeper analysis to break each good listed here into its scarce components (attention, time) and its non-scarce components (reputation, trust, etc.)... enough material for a book in itself.


IMMEDIACY
Fans want the product now. How can they get it?

Film: Internet VOD, Cable VOD, Hulu, Netflix, tickets to a premiere, BitTorrent, sneak preview (like a software beta release, but for a film, the preview is either free if you need a full house, or at a discount price if your product is high in demand)

Non-film: Email notifications and newsletters from the filmmakers, physical newsletters, blog posts, twitter/facebook updates, forum threads, IMs, live broadcasts (Ustream), lifecasting, ebooks, pdfs, iPhone apps. NB: in development, customers' feedback adds value by focusing on areas they want to see developed; transmedia is ideal for this.


PERSONALIZATION
Fans want something just for them. To create that "personal touch", producers start and maintain a dialog with fans. The end result is "stickiness"—both sides have a time investment in the relationship, so neither is inclined to let that relationship die. And the dialog adds further value to the product.

Film: Customized DVD mixes (for different ratings, a 3D and/or 2D version), a high quality version, limited editions, special editions, a director's cut, some versions could be tweaked for a specific theatrical venue, e.g., LOST did some hilarious mock clips at a convention just for publicity. Allow consumers to create their own mixes and offer a prize for the best mashup. Offer up the film without a soundtrack so musicans can show off their musical prowness by adding their own score. Let editors try their hand at editing your trailer and choose the best as your trailer. Or let the community pick your trailer for you.

Non-Film: customized merchandise (e.g., Cafe Press, or autographed goods), customized soundtracks like a kareoke version, offer only parts of a soundtrack so musicians can riff along with the score, customized ebooks, autographs, web sites with varying subscription levels (higher levels have more personal interaction with the filmmakers).


INTERPRETATION
Some fans simply want a film to be explained, while others want a film to be a rich starting point for a discussion. A movie could be free (or nearly free), but its accompanying commentary or literature could be charged for because a free product is more valuable with deeper insight, references, and a vibrant (and intelligent) forum discussion.

Film: A special edition DVD with multiple commentary tracks by actors, director, film critics, etc.

Non-Film: A "manual"—especially one written by the filmmakers—might ask questions like, What is the product? How does it pertain to me? What can I do? If your movie is a stand-alone product, it will eventually fade over time. But if you wrap your movie in an issue, it will have a much longer shelf life on the long tail.


AUTHENTICITY
Fans can get your product from other sellers... but why not get it from you?

Film: If a film is allowed to be mixed and remixed by its fans, then the original unmixed and "authoritative" version becomes extremely valuable. Authentic DVDs could be marketed as donating its proceeds to related charities, e.g., a prison movie could donate its proceeds to Amnesty International. DVDs that glow in a DVD player when played also dissuade customers from pirating DVDs. Remember how cool it was to see the Paradise Theatre LP by Styx?

Non-Film: Autographs establish credibility. Twitter & blogging, podcasting, and audio commentaries are all voices of authority which add value to the scarce product (a DVD). In some cases—like Ansel Adams purposefully burning negatives of prints he considered complete—destroying a master adds enormous value to all other copies.


ACCESSIBILITY
Fans want your product at any time. Are you part of their problem or part of their solution?

If you accidentally break a DVD, wouldn't it be nice if you always had free access to a replacement DVD, or at least a digital copy (which costs a producer nothing to produce)? If you buy a standard DVD and want to upgrade to a Blu-Ray version, wouldn't it be nice to upgrade to the better quality version for a small extra fee rather than feel gouged when buying the latest full price version? Why not create a subscription-based service through your web site to stay in contact with fans by providing them a service after you sell them a product? If you've done it right, users should feel completely safe that buying from you means they'll never have to worry about their content again. If they buy a DVD from you, they should know that they'll be able to watch that content on any device they own—TV, computer, iPhone. Customers should have access to anything they want, whenever they want, however they want. Offer that kind of service at a low price, make it simple and intuitive, and you'll have loyal customers forever... who will be very interested in whatever you sell next.


EMBODIMENT
Fans will pay good money to get their product in a high-quality physical format.

Film: IMAX 3D tickets are $16 ($18 if you buy them online). Fans will pay extra money for anything they can't get at home: 3D, Digital Light Projectors, Dolby Surround Sound, etc.

Non-Film: Q&A with the filmmakers, related live events before and/or after the film. Special print collateral could be given out or sold at screenings, e.g., a sheet with the cast of its characters, information about the movie's issue, or a special souvenir. Why not sell or raffle off a printed screenplay (with official card stock covers & Acco brads)? Or auction off clothing actually worn in the movie? Or create a book of collected printouts of development emails to be sold only at screenings? You could print high quality invitations, all slightly different, and include a "Willie Wonka" type invite with a special prize only to be given out at the screening (not only does a lucky audience member get the prize, but everyone gets to keep that high quality invitation as a cool keepsake!).


PATRONAGE
Fans want to throw you their money—are you ready to catch it?

Use a web site as a portal for fundraising and donations (subject to SEC regulations about soliciting investors). Let users join the web site as free members but offer paid tiers, too, with every donation range, especially the lower tiers. It's important to let people feel part of something no matter how small and their seemingly insignificant patronage could pay off later when you need free word of mouth to promote your film's release. Each tier would include more perks and make consumers feel they're doing the right thing. You need not simply ask for funds, either: along with subscriptions, you should also be offering scarce goods like T-Shirts and books. One example of a subscription tier, with amusing labels:

• $1-$9 Pal
  
• $10-$49 Friend
  
• $50-$99 Sneezer
  
• $100-$249 Supporter
  
• $250-$499 Megaphone
  
• $500-$999 Decoder Ring
  
• $1,000-$2,499 Patron
  
• $2,500-$4,999 Super Patron
  
• $5,000-$9,999 Über Patron
  
• $10,000–$24,999 Advocate
  
• $25,000-$49,000 Heavyweight
  
• $50,000-$99,999 Aristocrat
  
• $100,000–$249,000 Time Lord

Create physical and virtual tip jars: checks, VISA, cash, Paypal, cell phone donations. Allow options for anonymity and/or ability to leave notes with donations.

Accept bartering as payment by offering partnership deals with companies, e.g., you let us show our film at your company and help us advertise, we'll donate X% of our proceeds to your company. Perhaps advertise that all or some of the film's proceeds go to a charitable cause.

Make it easy to give. It should be so easy that your septuagenarian grandmother could donate without help in less than sixty seconds.


FINDABILITY
Generate massive publicity around your release date. Have a central web site where all traffic is directed. Put that URL on all your literature. Make that URL dead simple to remember and type into a browser:

YES: www.deadsimplemovie.com
NO: www.deadsimplemovie.com/moviesplash/&2hg/index.html

More tips:

• One piece of merchandise can and should cross-sell another piece of merchandise, e.g., a behind the scenes pictorial book could promote a printed screenplay, T-Shirts, etc.—but all merchandise should point back to the same URL. Perhaps all collateral would even have the URL at the bottom of every page.
  
• Don't be haughty about where your film gets distributed: upload teasers/trailers/movie to every single video platform you can, including Vimeo, Youtube, blip.tv, Facebook, Apple trailers, Hulu, Netflix... even BitTorrent (if you are hesitant about uploading to BT, why not insert sponsored ads into your BitTorrent release?).
  
• Generate buzz by putting different clips on different video platforms to get people comparing notes.
  
• Hand out partial or full-length screeners with your URL emblazoned across the bottom.
  
• Launch your film domestically and internationally on the same day.
  
• Donate a copy of your film to related charities or organizations.

As you can see, there are countless ways to infuse generatives to bring value to your film, and in doing so, bring value to all of its related scarce goods. The unfortunate truth filmmakers face in the modern age: films are no longer a protected scarce commodity as they were a half a century ago. In this digital age, the internet is one giant copy machine... once content gets online, it stays there, echoing throughout eternity. Rather than waste time and money fighting that Hydra, why not use the internet's unique ability to infinitely distribute content to add more value to your scarce goods? Why not use transmedia to build audiences who will buy your scarce goods? Why not let profits from your scarce goods fund your film's fixed costs? Why not weave generatives into every aspect of your business model so that only you can offer the product you're creating?

Filmmaking isn't only feature films anymore—it has expanded to be storytelling across many different media. Things like machinima will creep onto the scene as well as webisodes and short, funny clips. Feature films as a format will still exist, but they'll have to compete with the freemium and transmedia models that indie filmmakers are pioneering today. And, because of these wonderful new models, more indie filmmakers are connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy.

There will always be money in filmmaking because there will always be value in storytelling... just don't expect films to be the main products that generate all the money.

This article is part of a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read the entire articles by clicking here, or the other articles here:

1. Save the Tower Theatre
   
2. A Plea to Consumers
   
3. A Rotating Film Tour
   
4. What Are You Really Selling?
   
5. Transmedia: Connecting With Fans
   
6. CwF + RtB For Filmmakers

Transmedia: Connecting With Fans (Part 5 of 6)

This is an article in a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read all the articles in this series by clicking here.

TRANSMEDIA: CONNECTING WITH FANS
Telling a movie's story outside of a movie—i.e., in other media—is called "transmedia" and it's fast becoming a dominant model for filmmakers who realize transmedia's power to cultivate and exploit fans for their projects. Robert Pratten of Zen Films wrote a superb analysis about transmedia business models called Moving Filmmakers to a Transmedia Business Model. Pratten emphasizes how critical it is to target and nurture fans in the earliest stages of a project in order to build a platform before the product is even developed. From a cost perspective, this is fundamentally true. Filmmakers determined to only make a feature film may have difficulty understanding that making and selling feature films in themselves will become an increasingly outdated model. Of course, filmmakers will still be able to make feature films the old way by trumping for funds before connecting with audiences, but it will just get harder because other filmmakers will have already been feverishly connecting with their fans. If you were an investor, which film would you rather dump money in—a project whose target audience has never even heard of the film, or a project with a growing and vibrant community excited about a film's release despite it not having entered pre-production yet?

Pratten's Transmedia model explains how using transmedia to connect with fans early in the process is integral to getting funding sooner. For independent filmmakers, Pratten's overview should be like getting manna from heaven. Unfortunately, Pratten doesn't really address the other part of the formula, which is getting consumers to buy. The assumption goes that consumers involved in the development process will automatically buy the final product, and that's probably true. Still, I feel it deserves more attention. If I'm a fan connecting with your film across multiple media—what am I inspired to buy from you, and why? I love your story across DVDs, movies, the web, forums, software, etc., but why should I plunk down cash for your product? I'm not talking about the tired Old Guard defense, "I made a DVD and slapped a price on it—that's why you should buy it." I'm talking about what makes your product so unique, so clever, so irresistible that I would pay money for it even if I could already get it for free.

Transmedia shows us how and why we can get eyeballs on a product, but how do you covert those eyeballs into dollar signs? This is the part where we have to talk about CwF + RtB = $$$:

Connect with Fans + Reason to Buy = Profitable business model

First, we look at a product(s) we produce and ask, what benefit does it provide? Are consumers buying the film itself or the enjoyment of the film's story? Then, we take that benefit and figure out which components of it are scarce and which are non-scarce (or abundant/infinite). Tangible goods are scarce, intangible goods are non-scarce. For example, CD's are a tangible good and a producer's ability to produce 1 million CDs is limited by the producer's bank account. However, the music on those CDs is an intangible: a song can be listened to and copied infinitely with no cost to its original producer.

Non-scarce or abundant goods add value to the scarce goods. An infinite/non-scarce good like trust adds value to a scarce good it's associated with. For example, given two cars of equal retail price, we will always choose one brand over the other because we know one brand has a longer history of reliabilty. This brand's cars never break down. We trust that company to make a reliable product. So the infinite good (reliability) adds value to the scarce good (the car). Consider the example of this clever music band:

...The String Cheese Incident, a band that recognizes, "The more people are exposed to the music, the better it is for the band." The music (the non-scarce good) helps them sell a lot more tickets to concerts (a scarce good). However, that band took it a step further. They set up their own travel agency to help fans attend their concerts—and have been making money there by saving people time (scarce good!) and helping them secure flights (scarce good) and lodging (scarce good), all in the pursuit of access to the band (scarce good) who they value so much because of the music (non-scarce good).

Trust is a non-scarce good, but also a specific tool to influence behavior. Sally Hogshead has spent years trying to answer a simple question: why are we fascinated by things? The results are in her new book, coming out in February, called Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation. In Sally's words:

There are seven different "triggers" that activate our fascination: Power, lust, mystique, prestige, alarm, vice, and trust. Each trigger shapes our behavior in a different way. For instance, the mystique trigger provokes our curiosity, making us want to seek out more information. The lust trigger makes us crave an experience. Alarm increases anxiety at the threat of negative consequences. Trust calms us with familiarity and reliability.

All seven non-scarce triggers are used to entice customers to buy certain products or, put another way, to add value to scarce goods. If you are marketing any kind of product (and "product" includes stories and characters!), Sally's book will become a must read in an age of "free" where attention is our most valuable scarce good, a good which every company fights to obtain.

This article is part of a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read the entire articles by clicking here, or the other articles here:

1. Save the Tower Theatre
   
2. A Plea to Consumers
   
3. A Rotating Film Tour
   
4. What Are You Really Selling?
   
5. Transmedia: Connecting With Fans
   
6. CwF + RtB For Filmmakers (12/29 09:00 PST)

Parts 5 and 6 of this article series would have been impossible without Mike Masnick's lucid and insightful writings on Techdirt. To say I owe Mike a debt of gratitude here is an understatement of the grandest possible measure.

What Are You Really Selling? (Part 4 of 6)

This is an article in a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read all the articles in this series by clicking here.

WHAT ARE YOU REALLY SELLING?
There is a larger and more urgent question: are filmmakers, especially independent filmmakers, really aware of what business they are in? If they think they're in the business of producing and selling movies, they are dead wrong—filmmakers are actually in the business of entertainment. Consumers don't buy movies to support a filmmaker... they buy movies to be entertained. All too often businesses define themselves strictly around providing a tangible item and then fight to the death when that tangible item is replaced by a better product. Horse and carriage drivers weren't in the business of providing a horse and carriage—they were in the business of providing personal transportation. When cars were introduced and took over their market, horse and carraige drivers futilely tried to hold back the tides of progress. Newspapers aren't in the business of printing newspapers (a tangible), they're in the business of providing newsworthy information (an intangible). Before the digital age, where printing was costly, there was a place for newspapers... but now, when killing trees is increasingly unpopular, newspaper print production seems the pargon of waste.

Another great example is iTunes—they aren't in the business of providing media to consumers. If that were the case, they might only be selling DVDs or digital files with highly restrictive DRM. Instead, iTunes is actually providing quality and convenience at a low cost. I know (and so does Apple) that I can get almost anything iTunes offers for free from countless pirated web sites, but iTunes offers the best quality version on an intuitive platform for next to nothing. Why would I bother BitTorrenting when I can find anything I want, easily, and download it immediately... and do it legally?

As I was walking around Disneyland a few years ago, I realized that Disney doesn't simply sell merchandise for their films. Merchandise is a tangible, and as such, any other company could do that. What Disney does, what really separates them from everyone else, is that they sell an intangible. Disney cultivates and sells the magical experiences all children want (be a princess, be a pirate, a Jedi, etc.)... and offers it in the shape of physical merchandise (toys, keychains, stuffed animals, sweatshirts, etc.). Since most parents will do anything to please their children, parents trip over themselves to buy merchandise to sustain that magical Disney pixie dust. If you look at Disneyland closely, everything they do there is infused with this concept: "free" parades, fireworks, random musical numbers, barbarshop quartets. Pirates of the Carribean isn't just any old theme ride—it's a boat ride through supernatural piracy.

Filmmakers aren't in the business of selling movies—movies are the tangible. Instead, filmmakers are in the business of selling the experience their movie provides. Once you understand that distinction, you realize that clinging to many aspects of filmmaking could threaten your long-term career in filmmaking. If you focus your energies on enhancing the experience movies provide, then the movie becomes just one of numerous media adding to that experience. Depending on your career goals, you can either make the movie the main part of the experience, or you can let it be only a secondary part of the experience.

The Blair Witch Project has sometimes been described as an outlier, something so far above the mean that it's an exception that proves the rule. However, I believe Blair Witch was so successful because its filmmakers understood (perhaps only intuitively) that the experience of the story was what audiences wanted... so the filmmakers built an entire world outside of the film which enhanced the film's experience. For example, on the Blair Witch web site, you could see "real" pictures (from the local Sheriff department's murder investigation) of the film cannisters from which the movie is supposed to have been edited. Allegedly, college archeologists on a dig found all three film canisters 20 feet under the ground nestled snugly beneath an undisturbed stone wall over 100 years old. How could the cannisters have possibly been buried there without disturbing the stone wall above it? It's a small detail, perhaps even unnecessary to the movie, but a detail with such supernatural creepiness that it piqued a lot of people's interest in the movie's storyline, and thus enhanced the experience of the film. On their web site, you could get immersed in Blair Witch's detailed alternative reality. You knew it was all fake, but the more you looked at it, the more you wanted to see the film to find out what had happened. In the end, it was fun to squint your eyes and pretend it was real just to feel what the characters might have been feeling. Cloverfield took this approach a step further by creating web sites for an ARG treasure hunt and gave all the movie's main characters Myspace profile pages to interact with the public, a remarkably inexpensive but effective marketing campaign for a studio film.

This article is part of a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read the entire articles by clicking here, or the other articles here:

1. Save the Tower Theatre
   
2. A Plea to Consumers
   
3. A Rotating Film Tour
   
4. What Are You Really Selling?
   
5. Transmedia: Connecting With Fans (12/28 09:00 PST)
   
6. CwF + RtB For Filmmakers (12/29 09:00 PST)

A Rotating Film Tour (Part 3 of 6)

This is an article in a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read all the articles in this series by clicking here.

A ROTATING FILM TOUR
A pet peeve of mine is those who criticize but offer no viable alternative. Here goes:

Using my previous example, the Tower Theatre could thrive if it adapted to the changing market's needs. Art house film owners should be rethinking what scarce goods only they can offer, things which other theatres can't or won't offer. Taking a cue from Jon Reiss, art house film owners could make their movies more event-based. Let's look at that in more detail.

Imagine if 50 art house theaters across the nation held a kind of "rotating filmmaker Q&A tour"? Pair up two filmmakers, one famous with someone not so famous and double bill those movies. Play that double-bill for a whole week at an art house theatre and the filmmakers show up after the show for a Q&A a few days of the week (Saturday & Sunday?). 50 weeks long, 50 art house cineplexes, 100 films, 100 filmmakers. Filmmakers talk about their movie with local audiences, sign autographs, sell DVDs, merchandise, etc. It brings much needed business to all 50 art house theatres and offers the filmmakers a chance to sell merchandise and help build awareness about their movies. Now that's a model for sustainability! As a consumer, I can tell you that whatever "urgent" plans I have going on, I'll find day care and scramble to the Tower Theatre to hob nob with visiting indie film directors.

This is all about giving a consumer a good reason to buy. It's about creating value. You don't lure customers into your store because you appeal to their pity, because 'your store has been in the same location for 20 years and it would be such a shame to see you go out of business.' You lure customers in your store by offering them something they can't resist, something only you can provide. And, whenever possible, you make sure it's a scarce good they have to pay good money for.

Trent Reznor has successfully made that strategic shift—he doesn't sell CDs for $15 because he knows his fans can already get his music for free on P2P networks. Rather than gripe about it, he uses that industry shift to his advantage by giving away his music for free and the only "payment" he asks for is a fan's email. That may not sound like such a great deal for Reznor but consider how clever that as a way to stay in contact with fans. No record label has standardized this approach yet for CD purchases... and they wonder why their business is hurting.

Offering great content for the price of contact information is called an "ethical bribe". Fans get your music, you get to contact them about upcoming concerts, new products in your store, etc. For instance, Reznor created a ultra deluxe limited edition 4 disc collection of his music (a product he already gives away for free) and sold each copy for $300 to his first 2,500 fans. The limited edition is swanky, including three embossed fabric-bound hardcover books, a data DVD of the multi track recording sessions, etc... and it sold out in days. Reznor grossed $750,000 from a product he already gives away for free. How? Because he's collecting emails. Because he's selling something scarce. Because he's giving away his digital products. Because he's connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy. Still not convinced? Read the story of Amanda Palmer who made $19,000 in less than a month simply using Twitter to connect with her fans.

The trick with independent films is straightfoward—to give fans a reason to buy, you need to offer them value. But how do you create value when art is so subjective? Nobody could have predicted Slumdog Millionaire would win an Oscar for best picture. A dramatic feature about extreme poverty in India's slums? No way. Boyle's films are not your standard fare for studio films... Trainspotting has some "page killer" scenes which no Hollywood studio would have ever dared to film. However, because Slumdog won an Oscar and did so well at the box office, it is—by many earmarks, an independent picture with a big budget—thus, a commercial film. So how do you slice the pie to figure out what an indie film is and what isn't?

This article is part of a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read the entire articles by clicking here, or the other articles here:

1. Save the Tower Theatre
   
2. A Plea to Consumers
   
3. A Rotating Film Tour
   
4. What Are You Really Selling? (12/27 09:00 PST)
   
5. Transmedia: Connecting With Fans (12/28 09:00 PST)
   
6. CwF + RtB For Filmmakers (12/29 09:00 PST)

A Plea To Consumers (Part 2 of 6)

This is an article in a series called The Filmmaker's Guide to Value. You may read all the articles in this series by clicking here.

A PLEA TO CONSUMERS
Jon Reiss recently posted a very thorough article called A Christmas (and Hanukah) List to Help Save Independent Film. It's a valiant effort and may actually help some independent filmmakers stay afloat, much in the same way that NPR has stayed afloat with listener donations. Which is great. If CC P2P services like Vodo.net explode and consumers find a simple way to patronize the indie filmmakers they like, we'll all live in a much better world for the arts.

Even so, I can't help wonder: isn't this just bailing a sinking ship? Don't misunderstand: I'm not saying independent filmmaking is a sinking ship, at least not in whole. Quite on the contrary, some recent indie films have been wildly successful, both artistically and commercially, e.g., Precious, Once, Paranormal Activity. Supporting indie filmmaking, though, comes naturally when the market enjoys the content. If you're telling a story people enjoy, you should—in theory, anyway— never have a problem finding some kind of funding for your film.

Last week, I started a virtual panel on Twitter called Infinite Distribution. The panel focuses on film distribution in the digital age which you can find and contribute to at #infdist. Lots of people have been contributing to it, including Jon Reiss (author of the must-read book, Thinking Outside the Box Office), but a few comments in particular resonated with me. Self Helpless is a no budget comedy being released for free over BitTorrent for 7 days, followed by a DVD release with related mechandise like T-shirts, etc. In itself, their model is worth writing more about (read more about their BitTorrent model here), but this is a collection of @Selfhelplessmov's tweets:

Make shit people want and give it to them for free. Not for everyone, but it works for us. The idea of retraining or cajoling audiences irks me... maybe audiences need to retrain filmmakers to make movies people will like. Training people to be more film-savvy seems weird. Making movies FOR the audience often gets left out of the conversation—before we can teach, don't we have to gain their trust by giving them good films?

Why are indie films struggling? I see two obvious reasons (though there may be many others): the market doesn't support indie films, and costs to make indie films are too high. This is a tragic and vicious circle... when the market does support those films, then the costs aren't too high, right? So are we seriously objecting to a lack of support in the market for fringe indie films that can't seem to find their market? As Big Champagne CEO Eric Garland recently said:

...growing a sector is a privilege and not a right. There is no right size. There is no correct or God-given size for any sector. Why do we get to make movies that cost $300 million to make? Because we have found venues where people will spend more than $300 million on the result. If people spend only $50 million then the price of a movie must be $49 million or less.

This economic principle is and always will be mercilessly democratic. It applies to physical products 100 years ago and to digital products today: if audiences for indie films only spend $1 million, then the cost of indie films must be less than $1 million. If audiences spend $50,000, then the cost must be under $50,000. If there is no market for a particular indie film, then that indie film must either adapt... or it will die. You can bail water on the sinking ship if you so wish, but sooner or later, your arms will get tired. Appealing to consumers' good nature to help fund independent movies for its own sake is putting a band-aid on a bleeding jugular.

Terry Rossio once wrote on Wordplay, either in a column or a comment, and I'm paraphrasing: "we can give you all the advice about pitching your story to a producer, about how to format your script, about all these other little tips and tricks... but it won't make any difference if you can't write a Damned Good Screenplay. You could even write a screenplay in crayon but if its story and characters were compelling enough, that multi-colored script will still get a green light. So stop worrying about two vs. three brads and start worrying about your opening words. Worry about your character development. Worry about your story." Indeed. Rather than focus all your efforts on how to market your product cleverly, just focus your efforts on improving the damned product. Good content advertises itself.

This article is part of a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read the entire articles by clicking here, or the other articles here:

1. Save the Tower Theatre
   
2. A Plea to Consumers
   
3. A Rotating Film Tour (12/26 09:00 PST)
   
4. What Are You Really Selling? (12/27 09:00 PST)
   
5. Transmedia: Connecting With Fans (12/28 09:00 PST)
   
6. CwF + RtB For Filmmakers (12/29 09:00 PST)

The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value (Part 1 of 6)

This is an article in a series. You may read all the articles in this series by clicking here.

SAVE THE TOWER THEATRE
Sacramento has a local art house cineplex called the Tower Theatre. Its billboard out front reads, "Save The Tower Theatre" and has been posted there for years because Sacramento was going to (and might still) spend millions on a competing theatre in a fancy mall area in nearby downtown. The new mall theatre's art films would compete directly with Tower, but the new theatre would also be given, rent free, to the Century Theaters Corporation. Obviously, Tower Theatre and its patrons are up in arms about the deal.

Now let's be abundantly clear: I support the arts. I support the very idea of the arts. I got my B.A. in the Humanities and love publicly supported news organizations like NPR—they play a critical role in holding other for-profit news corporations accountable. That's a long-winded way of saying I get the warm and fuzzies whenever I see the arts flourish.

That said, Darwinism is an unrelenting and unforgiving bitch. Any animal, technology, system, or concept unable to sustain itself will either adapt... or die. And, to be blunt, if it can't adapt quickly enough, it should die. The cold truth is that extinction is not anathema to evolution—it's part of evolution. In order for newer and better systems to be born and thrive, decaying and less efficient systems must die off to clear the way forward. In the words of Dennis Leary, "I once heard Keith Richards say kids should not do drugs... Keith, we can't do any more drugs because you already did them all! We'll have to wait until you die and SMOKE YOUR ASHES!!"

I hope the Tower Theatre stays afloat. I really, really do. I try to make it over there when I can, but... it's a little too far away, I have two kids keeping me busy at home, and the movies Tower shows don't always grab me right away... It's interesting how I ordered my list of objections. If I lived next to the Tower, even if I had kids and their movies didn't grab me right away, I'd still go more often than I do now.

Whenever I do get over to Tower, I don't give them my money simply to support independent movies—I give them money because I like the indie movies they show there. If the Tower can't sustain itself showing indie movies, I will of course be extremely sorry to see them go... but I also have little sympathy for a business that's failed because they didn't understand how to earn more money than they spent.

The monetization of digital distribution is shifting under our feet like tektonic plates. Take a good look around because things will not always be so: if Blockbuster doesn't act fast, it won't be around in 5–10 years. On the other end of the scale, Netflix is already migrating its DVD rentals into a Watch Instantly service. News comes this week about Apple offering a $30/month iTunes TV subscription. Things are moving quickly and the ones who can adapt will earn the privilege of sticking around.

This article is part of a series called The Filmmaker's Roadmap to Value. You may read the entire articles by clicking here, or the other articles here:

1. Save the Tower Theatre
   
2. A Plea to Consumers (12/25 09:00 PST)
   
3. A Rotating Film Tour (12/26 09:00 PST)
   
4. What Are You Really Selling? (12/27 09:00 PST)
   
5. Transmedia: Connecting With Fans (12/28 09:00 PST)
   
6. CwF + RtB For Filmmakers (12/29 09:00 PST)