The Blame Game and the Glut-ter Punks

The favorite thing to do on the internet amongst indie film journalists this week seems to be to tear apart Manohla Dargis' piece in the New York Times, "As Indies Explode, an Appeal for Sanity." We don't want to uselessly add to the cacophony, but rather it might benefit to consider the problem that Dargis poses from the perspective of grassroots distribution. And it is a real problem; however, the glut of films she bemoans at  Sundance and then in New York theaters does not just manifest itself out of nowhere. It's simply a natural byproduct of the glut in production that there is generally right now. In fact in a recent survey of film professionals by Thom Powers, Janet Pierson mentions off hand that it seems like there are more people interested in making films than in walking to their local theater to see them. Basically, let's not pretend like the bottleneck is clogged up just at Sundance or New York theaters, and it's not that buyers are trigger-happy. Quite the opposite actually - every year Sundance programs more films and a smaller percentage acquire formal distribution (hence the increasing importance of exploring self-distribution through grassroots methods).

A directive like "take a moment and consider whether flooding theaters with titles is good for movies and moviegoers alike" assumes a couple things and overlooks some others. A simple raised hand might point out that this situation might only describe the situation amongst the traditional theater houses of New York or Los Angeles, dismissing what the spread of films is like in venues in every other city in America. But the easiest criticism has been to say that this statement neglects "four-walling" -- when a film's promoters buy out a theater in New York for the opening weekend. The next logical leap is to point the finger back at Ms. Dargis' own publication, because many use four-walling to exploit the Times' policy that they will review any film that opens theatrically in New York.

But let's look a little deeper. One thing we've often asserted in this fellowship that the glut of production makes branding, or curation -- anything that filters the massive choice that a viewer has to make when gazing upon this sea of films available -- more important and front and center to "distribution" than ever (and in fact distances it from the actual practice of distribution). For better or worse, a New York Times film review (due to their policy) is a form of that curation, precisely because it says "This film had a theatrical release." So the massive number of films available don't render that review less relevant; in fact it exacerbates its importance. And because it's essentially purchase-able via four-walling, it becomes an increasingly artificial symbol of success.

That is the real problem -- that the theatrical release is still being endowed with that (false symbolic) power. But the dynamics of self-release and grassroots distribution only add to it; a film's release in a New York theater is an event, and if grassroots campaigning depends on events to motivate action, a New York release is the equivalent of Election Day! However, if a film's calendar is peppered with events -- ie regional releases supported by the filmmaker doing a Q & A in person, selling merchandise, offering something special, like a candidate on a campaign trail -- then the importance of New York, as just one city, can be slightly diminished. A film's release should be a constant campaign with momentum consistently maintained around various benchmarks, not one long one that leads to a singular box office day and one write-up in the Times.

But what's most striking is the zero sum game that seems to be at play in Dargis' article between theaters and films (not to mention the false dichotomy of "good film = theater / bad film = VOD" that's assumed here). It's as if the number of theaters has stayed flat while the number of films we're trying to cram in them has skyrocketed. Probably the latter is outpacing the former, but the real opportunity for grassroots bottom-up disruption in the film industry might be located in the exhibition space. We've considered this in our idea for a Yelp-type app for film venues. If a filmmaker, after much deliberation, decides that a theatrical release is really important to their film's campaign (and not just a quick four-wall cash-grab for a review), then they have to open their mind to what kind of space their film can play in. Money that goes to four-walling traditional venues could instead go to promoting the actual run of their film in a less traditional space, or creating and building a real volunteer force to get word out based on that constant fuel of grassroots anything: sheer enthusiasm.

----

On behalf of Josh, Michael, and Carl, we just want to say it's been a great year writing about the film industry as it continues to change in unexpected and interesting ways. We're extremely grateful to John Tintori and everyone on the board at the Cinema Research Institute for the fellowship and the opportunity to think out loud in this corner of the internet for the last 12 months. And thank you to anyone who has tuned in, shared their thoughts, sent along articles, agreed to being interviewed. Grassroots filmmaking is all about community, and you all, along with the people that make CRI happen, are our community. Thank you.

BREAKING! Organizing for Action to organize for film

As this fellowship has been premised on finding the solutions for grassroots film distribution in the grassroots structures and methods of the Obama campaign, it seems highly appropriate that for one of our last posts, we break the news that Organizing for Action -- basically the version 3.0 of what began as Obama for America in 2007, the primary  entity we reference in our research -- is getting into the film game. Why is this exciting? For one, Organizing for Action as is currently is almost a purer form of strictly organizing than it was when it had the very concrete goal of electing Barack Obama president in 2008 and again in 2012. Relieved of that high directive, it can and has been able to diversify the target of the muscle of its still very grassroots campaign infrastructure and volunteer force. It is the perfect time to further diversify their organizing toolbox to include film -- and the possibilities for film are equally as exciting. We have often pondered what an OFA or DNC-like non-profit or national organization / collective for film would look like; without starting a new organization at all, this at least dips the original model's reach into the film distribution/exhibition landscape (in much need of help).

Organizing for Action actually began its efforts in this arena last month with a Day of Action (a common practice for campaigns) organized around nationwide screenings of "Chasing Ice," a documentary that records climate change through rapidly shifting ice structures. Note that this falls very squarely into a campaign that uses the film towards a political end, very explicitly; the "ask" of those at the watch parties was for attendees to opt in to a list that connotes that it is time to take action on climate change.

However, for the filmmakers behind "Chasing Ice," one imagines any mechanism that gets more people to see  their film, especially one in the form of a highly well-funded and reputable non-profit like Organizing for Action, is a positive development. Although the viewing or sharing of the film is not the end in and of itself, it is the tool through which change is accomplished via OFA. And any grassroots momentum around the film has the added effect of bringing more people into the film's circle of awareness -- which similarly can have its own default snowflake expansion of sharing, regardless of political ends. One can imagine a future in which OFA also uses screenings to pool interest in film in general (as opposed to using one climate change film to collect interest in climate change). Perhaps a Film Corps unit within OFA could start -- one run by volunteers particularly interested in screening films of various social importance or relevance.

Sundance_OFA_v10

The latest news, though, is that OFA is having somewhat of a coming out party (literally and figuratively) as an organization interested in film at the all-important Sundance Film Festival. Former Obama for America campaign organizer and White House official Jon Carson (now the director of OFA) will be hosting a party to talk a little bit about what they'll be up to in this interesting new chapter. Anyone interested in the cross-section of grassroots distribution and grassroots campaigning who finds themselves in Park City should attend. At least one member of the CRI Fellowship will be there to hear what's up!

Grassroots Movie Theaters- Concluding Idea Series, #3

In previous posts, we have explored how grassroots and DIY exhibition could be a viable way for filmmakers to distribute their films instead of relying on conventional distribution deals.  However, many of the filmmakers we have interviewed have noted how exhausting it can be to spend time and money to both make their film and distribute it on their own. Before the digital age of film, it was easier for new filmmakers to get discovered since fewer movies were being produced.  With the influx of films that get submitted to festivals along with Hollywood's growing tendency to only distribute blockbuster movies that appeal to a global marketplace, it is increasingly difficult for independent filmmakers to distribute new and original films.

Since studios are taking less of a chance on distributing independent films in movie theaters, a potential solution is for independent filmmakers to create their own movie theater circuit.  In a previous post, we interviewed Jay Craven, who successfully distributed his films by creating his own screening circuit in rural New England towns. Jay was successful at screening his films this way by targeting the same rural New England towns where many of his films were set.  He was able to then tap into an audience that would be interested in the cultural aspects of his film.  He also targeted small rural towns where locals were more interested in attending major events in their hometown instead of going to see blockbuster movies in a theater that could be over a half hour away.

What if a collective of independent filmmakers and community organizers created their own distribution circuit, based in towns that are likely to have a strong base of independent movie goers? Not only would this help films that slipped through the cracks on the festival circuit get noticed, but the films that did well on the circuit would get publicity that could help attract a deal with major distributors by showing there is a demand for the film at the local level.

However, finding the right locations to establish these grassroots movie theaters would be key, along with an effective outreach strategy on the ground to publicize film screenings at low costs.  From our background working on the Obama campaign, organizers played a key role in building relationships with supporters and community leaders through one-on-one meetings and cold calling. Similarly, organizers could be hired to build relationships with people in a community to determine the best places to screen films and recruit volunteers to help publicize the screenings. Another key strategy in the Obama campaign was collecting contact information from supporters at rallies, house parties and other events so they could email and call supporters to get involved in future events.  Similarly, a grassroots distribution collective could collect data from audiences at the screenings to better target and market their films in the future.  The data could be shared among the collective so every time a new film is distributed the filmmaker won’t have to start from scratch.

In one of our previous posts, we interviewed Kate West and Jacob Perlin who manage Artist Public Domain and Cinema Conservancy respectively.  The objective of both companies is to enrich culture through finding new venues for independent film.  Jacob suggested one thing that could help independent filmmakers would be,

“Some type of affiliated network where there is someone representing different regions who have more knowledge about it. Like for instance, if you have a [certain kind of] film in New York the goal is Film Forum because it gets the biggest best audience.  But what happens if your film doesn’t get in there? Well the traditional thing was always you open your film in Manhattan because Manhattan is better than Brooklyn but that isn’t the case anymore. Also, do you open your film at BAM or Nitehawk?  Someone outside of New York is not going to know the difference…there are so many iterations that only someone here could know and advise a filmmaker.””

What if there were a group of organizers who worked to distribute a slate of films in the non-traditional venues Jacob discussed in the quote above?  If done effectively, the films could attract buzz for independent films that big studios would never take a chance on since they lack the big stars and the special effects that appeal to a global marketplace.  Furthermore, running local campaigns for independent films based on word of mouth and grassroots strategies like cold calling and one-on-one meetings, might be a cheaper and more effective way of reaching the niche audience for an independent film compared to running a traditional movie theater P & A campaign, which is often expensive and targets audiences that are more interested in seeing blockbuster movies.

There is no doubt an effort for independent filmmakers to create their own screening circuit would take a tremendous amount of time, money and resources.  However, in the long run, it could have a greater impact than Kickstarter and other crowd funding sites that may help a movie get made but often fall short in helping an independent film get seen by a major audience, which after all is the most critical step for gauging whether or not a film is successful. A collective of filmmakers that create their own screening circuit and use grassroots organizing to target their audiences locally may be the secret weapon independent filmmakers have been looking for to help balance the recent tide of blockbuster movies flooding the theaters.

Why Studios Don’t Care if Hollywood Movies Tank and How Grassroots Exhibition Could Rescue Independent Film

My name is Carl Kriss, and I have been working as a research associate for Josh Penn and Michael Gottwald’s CRI fellowship on grassroots distribution.  Like Michael and Josh, I worked on the Obama campaign for both the 2008 and 2012 cycles and have been fascinated by how grassroots models from the campaign world shed light on new ways to distribute independent film. In fact, I've noticed a connection in the current struggle between independent filmmakers and Hollywood studios and the challenge Obama faced in the 2007 primary when he was running against the establishment-backed candidate, Hillary Clinton. In the early days, Obama and his team were at a major disadvantage in fundraising and name recognition, but the campaign was able to employ a historic grassroots operation on the ground and online that empowered volunteers to get out the vote and set records in fundraising by reaching out to small donors. This made me wonder whether a film collective could use grassroots organizing methods to distribute a slate of independent films that would normally not be seen in traditional movie theaters. The first step towards answering this question may be to figure out why studios are so interested in funding blockbuster movies over independent films in the first place, especially when many big budget flicks like Disney’s Lone Ranger and Sony’s After Earth continue to tank.

A recent article in the New York Times titled “Studios Unfazed by Colossal Wrecks” sheds light on why studios continue to spend more resources to distribute blockbuster movies instead of indies. In the article, Anita Elberse, a professor at Harvard Business School observed that even though more films are failing at the box office than before, it still “turns out to be a winning strategy.  It makes sense for the studios to spend disproportionately on a select group of the most likely winners. And they are the big budget franchise films with identifiable characters and global appeal.”

So studios seem to be intent on saturating the box office with blockbusters and sequels.  The article notes,"The studios collectively released 17 blockbusters between May and the beginning of August.  The summer season has rarely supported more than nine hits, according to Doug Creutz, senior media and entertainment analyst for Cowen & Company, who predicted this summer would generate numerous box-office flops."

Mr. Creutz adds that,

“The major media companies are so big that nothing but a blockbuster really makes sense. Say you make a low-budget comedy and it brings in $150 million. So what? That doesn’t move the needle. You make a blockbuster, you market and promote it, and it plays around the world. You can do the sequel and the consumer products and a theme park attraction. The movie itself is almost beside the point. All Disney is going to be doing is Marvel, Star Wars and animation.”

This is where grassroots distribution can rescue independent film.  With the advent of digital distribution, it has never been easier to screen movies at a low cost. A collective group of filmmakers and community organizers could distribute a slate of films at venues like drive-in's, union halls and school auditoriums for low costs and help prove to studios that there is a demand for independent films at the local level. We plan to explore this idea further in our next post for our 3rd Concluding Idea Series.

Exit polls: useful or useless?

One of the advantages of living in a country whose government has decided that film and art in general deserves state support (example: the United Kingdom... Not an example: the United States), is that that state support also manifests itself in the form of an organization like the British Film Institute, which has as a directive to study its country's film industry. They can serve as cinema "think tanks," and this kind of intensive analysis is particularly appealing to us as something we've also seen in grassroots political behemoths like the Obama campaign. A brief perusal of the BFI website shows not only the stats they've gathered on titles in the theatrical and VOD markets, but comprehensive studies on things like the habits of "avid cinemagoers," diverse vs. mainstream audiences, and case analyses about specific multi-platform releases. All of these would provide a more solid starting place for any U.K. filmmaker looking to better understand the potential of their audience But what raised our eyes most of all is that BFI conducts exit polls! On every release they support, they give a questionnaire to its audience. We were immediately drawn to this because in our ongoing quest for more data in the film world, it seemed like a revelation that the BFI was collecting valuable information from its audiences. It seemed to say that the kind of information collecting of the Obama campaign was not a pipe dream for films.

However, in looking at the actual poll, it seems that the only questions asked are about marketing and/or how the audience member ended up in the audience: "sources of information" (how did they hear about the film) and "baits to attendance" (what got them to go see it). When we think data in an organizing sense, we think email address, name, age, possibly even phone number or geolocation. It allows us to build a profile, per our interview with Dan Wagner, but it also provides a means of communication with our audience via email. Are these kinds of questions -- ie the fact that 30% of people who went to see Blue is the Warmest Color knew about it from magazine reviews or articles, or that 46% wanted to see it because it won the Palme D'Or -- at all relevant for filmmakers themselves? Or just publicity people, marketing companies, etc. It certainly tells you where you can make an impact with your marketing dollar, but only when this data is crossreferenced against itself. And the variety in (budget, genre, everything) in these titles is vast.

Is there any conclusions to be drawn from this practice through the lens of grassroots filmmakers? Or is it all for naught? Tell us what you think in the comments section.

An Interview with Obama for America Targeting Guru Dan Wagner

_­Happy Holidays from the CRI team! Since a recurring theme in our research is that more data and precise targeting would improve the distribution of independent films, we interviewed former Obama analytics guru and entrepreneur Dan Wagner. Dan revolutionized targeting for political campaigns by working as the Chief Analytics Officer on the 2012 Obama campaign.  Previously in 2008, Dan had worked as the National Get Out the Vote (GOTV) Targeting Director for Obama and as the National Targeting Director at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for the 2010 election cycle. In 2012, Dan and his 54 person team of analysts worked to create the analytics models that targeted undecided voters and supporters through media outlets and offline canvassing and phone calls.  You can read more about Dan's work for the Obama campaign and how it relates to targeting for film, in our blog post here.

After the campaign, Dan received funding from Google's Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt, who was a technology advisor for the campaign, to start a new firm called Civis Analytics. Headquartered in Chicago, Civis uses the technology and analytics strategies from the Obama campaign to help companies, non-profits, and campaigns utilize their own data to target their audience/consumers and build stronger data driven organizations.

We interviewed Dan to get his thoughts about how an analytics model could be applied to help distribute film, and the conclusions were fascinating. Here, we’ll share some of what we learned, with accompanying quotations from Dan.

1) Start with who likes you, not who doesn’t like you.

There’s an automatic assumption when we think about data that the starting point should be to gather as much as possible about the entire pool of potential consumers/audience members/voters. But Dan told us that during the whole endeavor of gathering data on the Obama campaigns began in Iowa in 2007, focusing on turnout – in other words, getting as many likely supporters to turn out for the caucus as possible. Dan and other team members used statistical models to identify people likely to support then candidate Obama, then integrated these models to the voter file and what the other operations of the campaign were doing (ie constituency outreach, volunteer recruitment). In other words, you can do more by perfecting the profile of someone who does like what you’re offering than you can by trying to deal with the whole sea of data out there.

In the film world, Dan yielded the notion that probably, through things like AMC rewards cards, etc., some large consumer information company is indeed analyzing that large sea of data about filmmakers in general, for the sake of the exhibitors and the distributors. But in the independent film world, why worry about coming up with a system to try to do the same? Which leads to the second conclusion:

2) The most valuable data is the data under your feet.

Dan encouraged independent filmmakers to look wherever they could and do whatever they could to gather data sets about the audiences going to their films. That could be as simple as a Facebook page; that could mean trying new things like a sign-up sheet after screenings. By pooling and cross-referencing these data sets, you can come up with a more and more finely attuned profile of the kind of audience member that likes films like yours. To further this process, Dan says the question becomes “When we create a product, how can we display it to a range of people to see how we can maximize the potential of a more targeted approach?” In other words, “test drive something specific, and see who likes it.” Michael suggested limiting the test art house theaters in New York, like BAM and Nighthawk, but Dan warned against a regional approach.

You might be able to do a limited release of an online panel of your movie, and then have a Google consumer survey where people can report back on their movie, and then you could say these are the people the movie appeals to across the country. So you're looking at it more as broad customer feedback, and looking at that feedback in terms of who likes this and how you could go wider. You could go in New York and look at who liked it but that's going to be a limited subset of people who already go to see independent films in New York City.

3) Surprise surprise: a consortium of data-gathering films would greatly enable the ability to use that data wisely.

A recurring theme (or pipe dream) in our research is the possibility of a grassroots collective of filmmakers that pool their resources – in other words the equivalent of an Obama for America infrastructure, but for film. Dan hit on this when he talked about how each state used to be doing its own data management, until the DNC stepped in:

Many years ago every state was doing its own thing… which is trying to define people that like Democrats. And what we did in the DNC in 2010 was we said: …[W]e're going to combine all this data and define for you who we think like Democrats and you'll have more precision because we'll have more time to spend on architecture and it'll get faster and cheaper. And before… the type of research they could do was bounded by their own capacity and resources.

And that's the same position someone who's a filmmaker and a small team is in. They can only collect the kind of research that is within their resource set which is probably small… But working together as a lot of people who are thinking about a similar audience you could probably do that.

The fundamental genius of the DNC was they went to these people and they didn't say give us your data. What they did is they said, give us your data so we can poll it. And you're going to get the technology infrastructure and the historical list of ID's that we will hold in that store for you. That's a good deal. So when you think about these people who are participating in these data agreements, they need to have an incentive to do it.

Dan connected the dots already, but a consolidated grassroots consortium could give filmmakers a similarly solid incentive to join: data management handled in house, and a more targeted idea of what an audience member who could like their next film would look like, for the sake of craftier, more efficient marketing efforts next go-round. As Dan puts it: “A bunch of people working together, like a mini-studio, could get consumer info – ‘we looked at 20 films, these are the people who like them… These are the people who like independent movis’ and then over time validate that.” In other words, this mini-studio or collective, could create pretty accurate profile of someone who likes independent movies in general, “and then generalize it for lots of promotion afterwards.”

4) This sharing of data amongst films necessitates a broader, more shared, more abstract notion that an audience could opt in to.

Dan spoke to the power of creating a broader banner under which a collection of films could solicit this data. Giving information on behalf of a film is a strange ask of an audience member; giving information on behalf of a bigger idea about what film could be is not so strange and potentially more appealing. Dan cited the example of Beasts and the limited grassroots work we did with that film.

You could imagine a case where you have a second or third movie that in principle is as good as Beasts. And you formed a way to share with a second audience and you say that this is not just about Beasts this is about bringing you into a community of independent art and you're going to be a part of that. And people say, 'Oh, I'm in.' And you're kind of building a community of people not just for that one movie but about all these other movies that are going to come out. You're building this community of people and also a set of data in terms of a list that grows over time of people who care about this. To use an organizing model that suggests sharing data between films over time. Because once a film is done, it's done, but you can capture that behavior and pool that into new films that are coming out overtime. You could offer them previews, fundraise for Kickstarter, all sorts of things.

In conclusion, Dan asserted that there is a different feeling one has when watching a film like Beasts than there is when watching a big blockbuster like Superman. Perhaps the starting place for the creation of a grassroots collective would be: what is that feeling? How can we articulate it in a mission statement for a large organization that could appeal to audience and induce them to offer information about themselves, in the name of that mission statement/feeling?

"Future of Indie Film" Panels: Does Anyone Know What's Going On?

It seems no festival or event related to independent film is complete these days without a panel dedicated to contemplating the future of distribution in the industry, given the ever-changing landscape of possibilities. (In fact, this morning, our team will participate in an illy Salon through the Cinema Research Institute, where we contemplate an iteration of these very questions). It also seems no panel like this is complete without much commentary, many observations, and almost no sense of what will actually happen to independent filmmakers in the future, near or far. It is a very disruptive time, indeed. Consider this most recent summary of everything plaguing the indie soul, from a write-up from IFP, article titled "The 7 Questions That The Indie Film Community Is Grappling With Now":

[A] "growing frustration at how money circulates in the community, how people can develop careers as filmmakers where there's so little funding to go around. There's also a growing concern that... the indie filmmaking industry is getting too concerned with building itself around institutional funders and the work from corporations that indie filmmakers use to help pay rent and sustain themselves."

That's a litany of problems to start with... and we'll get back to them. However, one such panel I recently came across did offer a distinct conclusion I thought particularly helpful when thinking about grassroots distribution and do-it-yourself solutions. That conclusion? That "doing it yourself" should not necessarily be the default solution if you do not get traditional distribution! And similarly, that traditional distribution deals should not necessarily be the first thing sought -- in fact grassroots solutions, or retaining rights and carving them up yourself may prove more lucrative and successful for everyone involved, if it's the right film. These thoughts came from Andrew Herwitz of the Film Sales Group in a conversation about Stacey Peralta's Bones Brigade. Bones Brigade had a built in industry around it -- it was a history of the birth of skating. This provided multi-faceted opportunities for branding, premium content other than the film. The representative from TopSpin -- the Direct-to-Fan service that was engaged -- noted that "there were deals to do"; in other words, traditional distributors were interested in the film, in significant ways. But it turned out it was not the best economic model for this film, given its particulars.

Sundance dream vs retaining rights

What really made the difference here is that Herwitz and the filmmakers took the deliberate step to actually stop and calculate -- through some math and science -- which distribution mode (in their hands or someone else's) made sense for the film. That is not normally a step; the default of a filmmaker is that if no one wants their film, they should push it out through other modes themselves. But Herwitz says "listen to the marketplace." The idea that because no one wants your film means that you should do it yourself is not actually necessarily the equation. Bones Brigade just happened to be about something that would offer enough premium content and keep momentum with fans and supporters such that it ended up being four times more profitable for Peralta than other distribution modes would have been. (Their summary: free downloads of non-film content built the marketing database; the database and social sharing of this material drive attention to the pre-sale of theatrical tickets and ultra premium high margin products; the pre-order ends the same day the film is available on transactional VOD; direct purchasers and social sharing drive more fans to VOD and DVD on release. The campaign didn't have anything for people to spend money on until Day 95 of the campaign -- that's how much excitement there was).

What made Bones Brigade a successful grassroots distribution campaign is the same thing that made the Obama campaign successful. There was a built-in, almost cult-like audience, with momentum along the way defined by the unlocking of or access to new content: be it videos from or about the campaign, new bumper stickers or similar swag, or events that the President or his surrogates would be at. For example, if you opted-in to the email list or donated a set amount, you got an item in the mail. Similar to how the Bones Brigade audience was not asked to spend money until well into the campaign, every part of the Obama machinery and brand was set to prime supporters to turn out for the most important day: Election Day.

There is strategy, math, and science to this. At another panel on the same inevitable topic, "Digital Discourse -- The Future of Media Distribution and Content Creation," held at the WGA and hosted by No Film School's Ryan Koo, Mark Schiller of Bond360 opined that "it used to be that you would hold everything back and wait and wait... Effective strategies now mean sharing immediately." I'll disagree; I think in fact that the expectation of sharing that fans and audiences have these days makes it even more important to be deliberate and patient with how and when content is shared. Just as the primaries built momentum into the start of the general election campaign, which then led to a marker of 100 days from Election Day, which then led to the revelation of the Vice Presidential candidate, which then led to the beginning of Early Vote, which then led to the Get Out the Vote drive of the last few days, films should deliberately punctuate their distribution campaign in a similar manner.

That takes a lot of effort and time. And yet somehow, increasingly the consensus seems to be that independent filmmakers should have a second job. "If your goal is to make films, then you need to look at it not as a place to make your income," was a quote that came out of the aforementioned 7 Questions panel. But then again, this shouldn't shock everyone. Yes, political campaigns are careers for some people. But not the candidates themselves. The idea is to take a few months to campaign, to achieve office so that you don't have to do it again for another four or six years. Similarly, filmmakers should not wear themselves out thinking that this kind of large scale grassroots outreach campaign has to be their whole life. In fact (and this may come as a bigger shock), it's not even necessarily the right choice for their film! 

A Review of the Latest Discourse on Self-Distribution

One very useful website we've discovered, not only for keeping on top of the latest fluctuations in the ever-changing landscape of the independent film "industry,"  but also for a hearty conversation about these fluctuations, as well as a straight-up resource for independent filmmakers aiming to do-it-themselves, is No Film School. Interviews with people and organizations changing the game are regular, as well as profiles of these organizations and lists of tools, websites, tutorials that can be of great use to the filmmaker starting from scratch. Perusing No Film School's articles about distribution is a good way to take the pulse of what's on in that world at the ground level. Many recent entries correlate with and elaborate on things covered through our study. For example:

An interview with the creators of Simple Machine ("a peer-to-peer marketplace that allows anyone to become a theater and anyone to list a film to be shown") builds off of and actually diverts the dialogue we had with Arin Crumley about the race to the bottom, technology-wise, in distribution:

So this all started as just a film trafficking tool, a way to move digital film prints into theaters, making the physical process easier, but I quickly realized that it wasn’t the physical process that was holding anybody down. Theaters were so bogged down in the bureaucratic processes and political relationships necessary to run their business, that despite expressing enthusiasm about the idea of single-night films and more eventized screenings, they couldn’t actually get their shit together to commit to anything. At which point I realized that I wanted to make this available to anybody who wants to show a movie off their laptop.

Essentially the Simple Machine creators realized that as increasing numbers of filmmakers had means to physically distribute films themselves, "distributors" weren't the problem, but rather the exhibitors that are entrenched in their ways of dealing with traditional distributors. These conventional exhibitors are not as nimble as the film landscape itself these days. So they must be routed around -- something Jake Perlin mentioned in our conversation with him and Kate West.

Another conclusion from our talk with Arin was that as distribution gets easier, "distributors" become more important as brands -- a way to group the plethora of "content" out there. These brands can shape exhibition too - as Simple Machine's Nandan Rao says: "That's why I think that, to some degree, film festivals are successful. They provide a very different context than the traditional theatrical experience."

Nandan also had a pretty conclusive conviction about the debate as to whether independent film really is a profit-making venture, but from an unforeseen angle: "I don’t really see making independent filmmaking an economically viable proposition at this point, and I don’t know if it’s ever going to be from the payments of end-consumers. The effort of building the context for people, of educating and establishing connections and relevance, is probably always going to be more than what you’re making back." This assertion assumes that you, as the filmmaker, want to ensure the absolute optimal and proper reception for your film -- that that is more important than making a quick buck. For an independent filmmaker, that's a safe bet. But the trade-off may just be that that effort to put out your film in the "right" way will cost you any profit on the back end.

No Film School also covered Vimeo's recent offer at the Toronto International Film Festival of $10,000 (and 90% of sales) for a 30 day digital distribution deal. Will filmmakers coming out of festivals, desperate for any compensation or attention for their film, increasingly gravitate towards short term digital deals, that pre-empt the theaters? What does this mean for a "campaign" model? Campaigns are built on momentum. Does a film being available in short term on a pay site like Vimeo on Demand deflate the momentum towards something like a potential theatrical run/tour... or is it the perfect promotion for it?

A constant topic in our study is how to access information on audiences -- how to get them to "opt in" to the campaign or life of a film, so that they can be accessed, activated, and energized. In a profile of the distribution platform Chill, and how they offer "Inside Access" to the making of a film, the No Film School writer notices a pattern based on a simple equation between content and opting in: "In terms of DIY or self-distribution, the trend seems to be in favor of gated content — the idea of entering your email address in exchange for content. Audiences want content and creators want an easy way to directly contact their audiences." This seems simple enough, but if a user doesn't already have enough of a reason to want to see the content, even that sign-up ask can be too steep. On the Obama campaign, it was never required to enter information to see new content like videos; it was more in the interest of the campaign to use publicly available modes like YouTube. It may be the same for filmmakers: it is more helpful to have access to content totally unblocked until you can be sure there is a premium on what you are creating...

Which is exactly why "touring" or physically "campaigning" (from place to place) with a film has become more popular -- there is an irreplaceable premium on seeing a film in person with its filmmakers (ie that different context, like a festival, that Nandan mentioned). That should assure that some form of a theatrical element (even if it's more like an "event" and less of a "run") will always have a place in a film's life, say filmmakers like James Swirsky and Lisanne Pajot, who asserted:

As we watch how digital media has changed the music industry it’s all about hearing them in person, and that’s where bands are making money. It’s not the easiest life touring and you have to be a special kind of person to do it. Even with the internet and having access to everything you want, people are still looking for cultural experiences or artistic experiences in person. We live our lives on our smartphones connecting with people that we don’t actually connect with in person, so I think that’s what films are going to do.

This begs the question: is going on tour with a film part of the "optimal context" you're providing to the audience in exchange for the possibility of profits, or is it a means to the end of cutting out the middleman and reaping direct revenue?

These are just some of the many topics being explored in the self-distribution world; what's very clear is that while many people think they have the answers, the questions just keep coming.

Grassroots Film Collective- Concluding Idea Series, #2

As we get closer to the end of our fellowship, we are publishing a series of blogs that propose would-be final project ideas related to our research on grassroots film distribution. Although we have decided not to turn these ideas into our final project, we hope the series will spark a conversation about possible grassroots tools that will help independent filmmakers distribute their films.  Part 1 of our series was a site that would serve as a Pandora for movie trailers, offering users the ability to type in their favorite movie and instantly watch trailers that relate to that film.  You can read more about our idea by clicking here. Our second CRI final project idea is a Grassroots Film Distribution Collective.  In our study we have found that many independent filmmakers, especially first time directors, feel overwhelmed when they distribute their films.  One of the many directors who we interviewed that felt this way is Marcia Jarmel who co-directed and self-distributed the documentary, Speaking in Tongues.  Although the film had a successful distribution run, Marcia commented, "I started out thinking I could do everything myself, and made myself pretty nuts for a while. It is much, much easier to have an army of people helping you. I think most filmmakers do not have that.”

This lead to us wondering if a film collective could be formed so that when audiences 'opt-in' to a film project--i.e through a crowdsourcing site like Kickstarter, or if they give their information to a volunteer at a community screening, the information is shared and passed on to a group of filmmakers that later use the data to target their audiences in future campaigns.  The mission of the group would be to build one big audience for a slate of films by sharing distribution information and resources with like minded filmmakers.  This is different than the normal distribution plan to build a big list for one film and then never use it again or wait to use the list for two to three years later when the director makes another film.

Unlike other non-profit consulting, this would be a group of independent filmmakers who pool together resources to distribute their films. The group would focus on developing a volunteer structure similar to the neighborhood team model, in which Jeremy Bird, former Obama National Field Director, discussed in our interview here. In the interview Bird suggested community organizers could help distribute films by connecting with non-profits, recruit volunteers to help set up community screenings and call through consumer data to identify target audiences for certain films.  This is similar to an approach that filmmaker and political activist Sandi DuBowski, who we interviewed in a previous post here, adopted to distribute his film, Trembling Before G-d.  Building a grassroots film distribution collective would take significant time, but overtime, if the films did well the data and grassroots resources pooled together by the collective could become invaluable and possibly compete with the publicity campaigns of major studios.

We look forward to your feedback on our second CRI final project idea in the comment secant below. In Part 3 we will discuss an idea for a website that enables filmmakers to plug in information about their film and find out which campaigns would be most effective to distribute their film.

Pandora for Movie Trailers- Concluding Idea Series, #1

As we approach the end of our fellowship, we will publish a series of blogs that reflect ideas we came up with while discussing our final project for CRI. Although we decided not to pick these ideas for our final project, our hope is the series will spark a conversation about possible grassroots tools that will help independent filmmakers distribute their films in the future. The first for our CRI final idea series, is a website that acts like Pandora for movie trailers. Similar to Pandora, you would type in a movie you like, and the site would instantly create a station that plays trailers that are related to that film.  The user could then give the film a thumb up or a thumb down.  Based on your responses the site would try to figure out your movie preferences and play other movie trailers that you might be interested in.  The website would also provide links to sites like Amazon, Netflix and Fandango making it easy for the user to watch the film of a trailer they liked online, buy a ticket to see it in movie theaters or buy it on DVD.

In our research, a recurring theme is that a lack of data and transparency in distribution has inhibited filmmakers from being able to effectively gather information about their audiences and market their films.  This website would help solve that problem by motivating people to opt-in through an interactive and engaging interface while also collecting important data about their movie preferences. Filmmakers and distributors could then use the data to target their audiences and distribute their films without starting from scratch or spending millions on a publicity campaign for their film.

B-Side is a distribution company we studied early in our research that adopted a similar strategy by creating a website that festival goers could use to organize their schedule and review films.  They were able to then use the contact information and data from their website to set up a record 1600 screenings of the documentary Super High Me on 4/20 which later lead to the film selling 85,000 DVD's and grossing 3.4 million dollars in the first year. To date, the film is the second most watched titled on NetFlix Instant.

Furthermore, a Pandora for movie trailers website could establish partnerships with movie theaters, art houses and online distribution sites like Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu by offering free publicity for online and offline distributors.  This could potentially raise awareness for independent films and older movies that are often overlooked or forgotten about.

We look forward to hearing what you think about our first CRI final idea in the comment section below.  In Part 2 of our CRI Final Project Idea Series we will raise the possibility of a Grassroots Film Distribution Collective.

Thoughts on "Dream": Can Filmmakers Mobilize Audiences with an Ethical Spectacle?

Given the release of Grand Theft Auto V last week, now seems as good a time as any to share thoughts on a book we read on a recommendation from a friend in the filmmaker community: Stephen Duncombe's "Dream: Re-Imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy." Generally theorizing that progressives could learn a lot from the fantastical image-making that the Right has executed at will in political theater (see: George W. Bush on the aircraft with the "Mission Accomplished" banner), Duncombe, who is a professor at NYU, spends much time articulating how the violent, sexual id-like impulses that are allowed to play out in Grand Theft Auto 4 are not cause for shameful moral hand-wringing, but rather that the popularity of the game speaks to the power of channelling fantasy through performance as an Other in the Other-world of a video game. (For more insight on video game narrative and storytelling, see CRI fellow Ryan Silbert's work here). What does this all have to do with grassroots distribution? In discussing what has hobbled progressive politics in the past, Duncombe actually does hit on many of the fundamental elements of grassroots movements that we have considered through the lens of film. For example, he derides organizations that recruit young "activists" on the street who stop you to ask for your money -- these are not empowered people. "This method... severely circumscribes the playing field of politics, disconnecting potential activists from political activity... What is asked from the passerby is equally alienating... This sort of politics discourages the creation of the very thing needed for democratic change: everyday citizen-activists" (pg. 66). These young organizers have not been respected, empowered, and included -- they are not in charge of the change they can create, as they would be in a truly grassroots organization. As a counter example and one in which the political activity is distinctly "image making," Duncombe cites MoveOn (much discussed by Nicco Mele in our conversation with him) and their campaign to democratically create an anti-Bush ad to play during half time of the Super Bowl. MoveOn "turned to its amateur membership, asking them to use their handicaps and desktop editing software (or access to moonlit professional facilities) and create an ad themselves... [which] resulted in a low-cost, high-quality product and the donations required to get it broadcast. MoveOn works because it invites its members to play" (pg. 75). The use of the word "play" here denotes the connection between grassroots movements and a video game like Grand Theft Auto; in both the key is that people at every level are participating in a meaningful way.

What Duncombe gets to in his book is a call for an "ethical spectacle" that progressives can collectively participate in. Some minor examples he gives is the participatory role-playing of the Billionaires for Bush, and the power of the presence of huge numbers of cyclists in Critical Mass. Because he's writing about the need to make "images," it seems like the connection between grassroots politics and grassroots film would be a clear one. In fact he calls attention to the fact that political "grand-standing" often learns the wrong thing from Hollywood -- the posturing around it instead of the power of its images:

"The mainstream models of progressive politics, from the professionalized Democratic Party to the ritualistic "March on Washington" of those further to the left, don't learn from celebrity culture; they ape it. A star on the platform is seen and heard, while the rest of us merely watch, applauding at the right moments. This has to change…. we need to look downward, concentrating on building local organizations where all participants can witness the efficacy of their participation and, in turn, have their participation witnessed by others…" (pg. 112)

If progressive masses continue to be treated as the audience, with certain leaders as the pedagogues, their politics will go nowhere, says Duncombe.

The natural conclusion to Duncombe's thinking is that filmmakers are the perfect ones to create and/or benefit from an "ethical spectacle." However, this could go two ways: 1) filmmakers are appropriately tuned to be the one making the image-based spectacles (through their films) that could motivate the masses in progressive politics. In other words: progressivism benefits from film / the medium), or 2) filmmakers could benefit from using the tactics that Duncombe proposes for the purposes of getting audiences to their films. So film benefits from progressivism / its field.

The second idea is less interesting than the first; in many ways we've been exploring how filmmakers could use grassroots tactics to get people to their films for the last 9 months. A participatory spectacle that is separate from the film itself is, however, an interesting idea, if only just another thing in the filmmakers' grassroots quiver. An example that comes to mind is the parade that the True/False film festival holds to kick off the weekend's festivities. Not only does anyone get to participate, but the costuming that is encouraging is in line with the broader idea of the festival, which is to constantly explore the line (if there is one) between what is "true" and "false" in documentary film. Another creative way the festival does this: their yearly game show "Gimme Truth!" in which participants guess whether 2 minute documentaries are real or fake. It's worth pointing out that these "spectacles" move forward an idea of a festival in general (which in turn of course promotes going to see films), but not the notion of going to see specific films.

The first idea -- that film can provide progressive politics with an ethical spectacle -- puts us firmly in a social action cinema landscape. Inherently any films we're talking about are being utilized for an external purpose (to move politics forward). However, filmmakers could still learn from what Duncombe finds in games like Grand Theft Auto 4: that the target audience creates meanings for themselves. Often "social issue" films feel very didactic and polemic, with little room left for multiple conclusions or interpretations. One can name a million documentaries like this, but even a fair number of narrative features do this and limit their audience as a result -- "Promised Land" comes to mind. "Whereas such multiplicity of popular interpretation was once seen as a problem that the artist… had to overcome, this openness to meaning is now built into the art itself… This is exactly how an open spectacle should work: planned, guided, and artfully created, but open to modification, indeterminacy, and contingency at both the level of form and meaning," says Duncombe on page 136.

In conclusion, though, one wonders if the medium of film is inherently too based on a paradigm between audience and thing looked at -- just like the speaker and the audience at the March on Washington or a Democratic Party Convention. Duncombe cites Situationist Guy Debord: " 'The role played by a passive or merely bit-playing 'public' must constantly diminish'… What an organizer of ethical spectacles must do is provide plenty of opportunity for intervention at an intimate and personal level, for this will translate into some sort of action that is transformation to both the individual actor and, ideally, the larger society" (pg. 130). Today more than ever, films have other mediums through which their audiences can "participate" in the world of the film -- something we discuss in an older post here -- but how can this be channelled meaningfully and not subsumed by market-based "fan culture" spaces?

There is a difference between living in a fantasy and acting out a fantasy of change. This is what Duncombe explores, and what grassroots filmmakers could afford to explore with their work.

A Conversation with the Filmmakers of Four Eyed Monsters- Does Digital Mean Distribution No Longer Matters?

Following our case study on the independent film Four Eyed Monsters, we decided to interview the filmmakers themselves, Susan Buice and Arin Crumley.  Four Eyed Monsters paved the way for DIY and online/grassroots distribution.  After the film premiered at Slamdance in 2007, the filmmakers found themselves in territory familiar to many independent filmmakers, a successful festival run followed by no distribution deal.  Susan and Arin then decide to market the film themselves by using innovative online tools like a videocast that documented their struggle to distribute the film.  They also created an online petition where fans could sign up to show their support for the film in order to convince local movie theaters to agree to screenings. Eventually Four Eyed Monsters successfully grossed a total of $129,000, $100,000 of which came from online sales. Below is some select excerpts from our interview with Susan and Arin, followed by our key takeaways.

MG: With Four Eyed Monsters it seemed like where you succeeded was on your own and not with the traditional gatekeepers of independent film.  When you look at the big picture of the independent film industry, how do you guys characterize what you did and how it's different?

SUSAN BUICE: A lot of what we were doing was a reaction to the feedback that we were getting on the film festival circuit…We ended up talking to distributors and they said “We like your film but you’re not famous and we can’t really sell a romantic comedy with no famous people in it to an audience; it’s too hard to market.’ And so we were like: we’ll become famous.  We’ll make people 'like us.'  We’ll make this video podcast; we already have this footage. And it wasn’t like ‘Oh we’ll get in this for fame,’ we [said to ourselves] we’ll make something so people have that connection and want to watch a film about whether these two people end up together or not together… So we knew we had this content that was leading into another project and we figured that other project would just be a continuation of Four Eyed Monsters because it was documentary stuff as opposed to narrative stuff.

We were telling distributors ‘we still want you to distribute the film but we’ll just take care of the marketing’ and they [told us] 'That’s not proven, let’s not do it.'  And after we got kind of shut down we [asked ourselves if] we still think it’s a good idea, do we believe in the idea enough ourselves that we would distribute it ourselves if it works. And that’s when we decided to move to my parent’s house and start making video episodes.

MG: You guys got an audience actually in the wake of trying to put out a film and then it ironically allowed you to put out a film in a profitable or break even way. Let’s say I'm not making that film whatsoever [a comedy\drama about online dating]; how do I structure my campaign in a way that uses the takeaways from you guys?

ARIN CRUMLEY: There’s this kind of dream that there’s this social medium button you press and it all works…The difference I believe is the volume of additional content.  Like how much extra stuff other than the movie exists.  And in our case we had more media than the film itself.

You need to create a story world, story universe. And that is maybe not something the filmmaker has planned for. They were hoping they could just get a consultant to come on in and read a little manual and then they’re going to get all the answers and they just have to do that and they’re all set.

For people who love the cinema medium there’s this resistance like “I don’t want to go design video games, that’s not what I do. Why do I have to do that?” No one said you have to do that. I mean in our case we got to make a video podcast that we wanted to make and other documentary media that was really fun to work on. So I think that should be the design challenge. What would be cool that relates to your project that you can make and create a media presence around it?

[For example:] create a trailer that is similar to a Kickstarter or crowdfunding campaign that creates a campaign to distribute the film.  It shows the trailer and then the director pops up on camera and says, “I can’t release the film; sorry, but I would love to… If you can simply request and tell me where you guys are we can do this and we can bring the film to your town”…And they did this with Paranormal Activity after we did this with Four Eyed Monsters and they got like a million people to request local screenings which gave the studio confidence to spend money on a wider release.

MG: Cause that's sort of the magic of Kickstarter, though you're technically raising money what Kickstarter also does is identify an audience. In a way what you're basically saying is you don't need the actual funding part you just need to manifest demand for it?

ARIN CRUMLEY: We are now in an era of post-crowdfunding explosion. So what does that mean? Crowdfund everything? Not necessarily. I think it means something else as well.  There are phases to your production, and different phases that previously wouldn’t have involved marketing of any kind now might.

And this is the idea of [Arin’s website] OpenIndie and other sites like Flicklist -- an app that lets you list films you want to see.  And they're working on a bookmark where on any page any filmmaker could put this universal button [that communicates] “People, hit this button -- this is the only way we’ll know what platforms to put this on or what cities to put this in or what countries this should go to”... Just ask, who are the people who want to see this thing.

MG: Because you were one of the first pioneers to build an online audience, do you think you will distribute your next film by yourself and possibly skip the film festival route? Or do you still see value in those gatekeepers and possibly getting a distributor?

SUSAN BUICE: I still see value in film festivals but it's different than I initially thought. Pre-Four Eyed Monsters I thought you could go to festivals to prove your worth and get picked up.  Now I look at going to film festivals as a way to generate buzz and as a way to meet people for your future career.  Not even to help your film necessarily, but to help you get a job on another film or to help you make your next movie.  I think if we go to film festivals with our next project that is going to be our goal.

ARIN CRUMLEY: It's like a non-event to distribute something. You will, in the process of authoring a film, distribute it; you will put it in a format that is distributable and that is distribution -- you're done. [With] digital, it's invisible.

The conversation about distribution should really just stop. It's so easy. There really should just be a conversation about marketing… The question really is marketing. And I think the answer is… media brand. Sundance is a media brand, HBO is a media brand.  And I think the opportunity right now is to create those media brands.

Key Takeaways:

In conclusion, our interview with Arin and Susan brings up the possibility that distribution has become so easy through digital and online tools, that the process of trying to get a "distributor" to pick up your movie could be more about branding. For example, getting your film distributed by Sony Pictures Classics isn't meaningful in terms of the actual practice of distribution -- ie delivering the film itself to the theaters.  Technology is increasingly making service they provide look more and more overvalued. The P & A costs spent by the distributor often means the filmmaker never recoups. However, the advantage of having a distributor like Sony Pictures Classics is that your film has been validated by the SPC brand. Just like your film playing at Sundance is kind of an award-like validation -- it helps legitimize and market your film but doesn't actually have anything to do with your distribution. Eventually anyone could have the power to digitally send their film to a theater. So what is a distributor left to do? Marketing. Something else that can be increasingly done on the internet.

However, when more and more people have the ability to market, brands mean even more because they help a customer make sense of the chaos of the marketplace.  This explains why festival submissions have increased over the years and major studios still dominate the marketplace.  Since new technology has made it easier and cheaper for people to make movies than ever before, there is a growing need for studios and festivals to act as the curator to the influx of independent films produced over the years.

Nevertheless, Arin highlighted the potential for filmmakers to build their own brands through creative online content like the video podcasts they created for Four Eyed Monsters. The Obama campaign was able to adapt a similar strategy to supersede the conventional news and media markets by generating its own media channels through YouTube and online listservs.  This enabled the campaign to communicate with its supporters efficiently at inexpensive costs and successfully build its own identity. Could filmmakers gain more creative and monetary control of their films by designing their own marking campaigns online instead of relying on studios and conventional movie theaters to brand their films?

However, the Obama campaign was only successful at moving its online community to action through a massive offline effort through phone calls, one-on-one meetings and door to door canvasing on the ground. Recruiting such a large grassroots team for distributing a film does not seem feasible.  Still, the success of the Four Eyed Monsters' videocast reminds us that we should not underestimate how creative online content can be used to build relationships and loyalty with an audience – just like the creative videos of the Obama campaign contributed to a feeling of community and loyalty. Furthermore, with film, it is likely there may be less of a need for as much on the ground organizing as that which is required by a political campaign.

In future posts we plan to further explore creative and resourceful ways filmmakers can build their audience online without relying on the traditional gatekeepers to brand their film.

A Conversation with former Digital Politics Guru Nicco Mele- Has the Internet Really Changed the Game?

In our next interview we talked to the former Webmaster of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential bid, Nicco Mele. While working for the Dean campaign, Nicco helped pioneer the use of social media in political campaigns to fundraise. After the campaign, Nicco co-founded a digital strategy consulting firm called, EchoDitto, that offered service to non-profit and corporate clients like Barack Obama’s Senate campaign, the Clinton Global Initiative, and the Sierra Club. Nicco is currently a professor at Harvard where he teaches graduate classes on the Internet and politics. His book, The End of Big: How The Internet Makes David The New Goliath explores the consequences of living in a socially connected society. In our interview, Nicco questioned whether the Internet had transformed political campaigns and the film industry for the better. He referenced three books that he teaches in his Internet and Politics class to outline how the Internet has impacted political campaigns: The Move On Effect by David Karpf, Taking Our Country Back by Daniel Kreiss, and Victory Lab by Shasha Issenberg.

The first book Nicco discussed in our interview was The Move On Effect, which proposes a three-pillar theory for running an effective digital political campaign. Nicco recalled,

“One is build a big email list. You need a big email list because people live overwhelmingly in their inbox. The average American spends more than 30% of their time in their inbox… The other thing about email is that it’s measurable and repeatable and you can build behavior models to increase interaction. You can’t do that on Twitter or Facebook. If I tweet something I have no idea if you saw that tweet or not and so I can’t go back to you in a contextual way to tell you a greater story. Whereas with email I know if you opened the email, I know if you clicked on it and I can build a model to deal with you.”

“The second core pillar is online community. Karpf talks about this pretty exclusively in terms of blogs but I think it is a much broader decision besides just blogs. Online community is some sense about feeding the most rabid people in your community. The care and feeding of evangelist is essential in online success.”

“The third pillar is online/offline. Politics is really a face to face business and you really have to be able to use the Internet to drive people to meet face to face.”

Nicco also mentioned that to be successful at these three things, you need a nimble operation that contains a willingness to take risk, has strong analytic skills and aggressive in measurement. “Part of being successful on the internet is taking advantage of when things go viral. But who knows what makes things go viral? That’s obscure and impossible to measure. So you have to try a lot of things hoping some of them go viral and you have to measure them so when something starts to go viral you can poor gasoline on the fire and then you have to be able to measure that.”

Nicco then contrasted Karpf’s three-pillars theory for running a digital campaign with a list of 5 key elements that go into running any campaign (regardless of its digital component)

   1) Raise money    2) Have a message    3) Communicate the message through media    4) Deal with press    5) Field or turnout operation

Examining the list, Nicco posited that perhaps the internet has only had a significant impact on one of those elements: Raise money.

“It’s fundraising and that’s where both Dean and Obama broke through. They used the Internet to build an alternative vehicle for fundraising. And the message is still crafted with polling. The message is still delivered by television… And I bet if we made a list of the 5 essential elements of pulling off a film we could figure out how the Internet or digital changes those things. Pretty clear Kickstarter and Indiegogo, etc., are having some impact on the funding of films. Although exactly how much impact and whether it’s good is a big question for me.”

This causes us to wonder if the only thing filmmakers can really learn from the Dean and Obama campaigns, as far as digital goes, is that the internet makes it extremely easy to raise money. However, the Obama campaign was known for recruiting a historic number of volunteers to knock on doors and make calls for the campaign, and many of these volunteers were recruited through offline phone calls and one-on-one meetings with organizers on the ground -- not email. However, translating money into action is usually harder. Nicco pointed out that out of the approximately 6 million people who donated to Obama’s campaign in 2008, only approximately [400,000] people or around 10% made phone calls to their members of Congress to support Obama’s signature healthcare bill 8 months later. Nicco noted,

“There is this bizarre paradox which has probably never been true in American or maybe human history which is [that right now] giving 100 dollars is easier than doing anything else. Which is kind of lunacy and probably bad for democracy. It is definitely not healthy.”

Nicco is suggesting that although the internet has made it easier to contribute to political and film campaigns than before, it has not had a significant impact in motivating people to take action in politics or in film. For example, an astonishing 80% of Kickstarter films that get funded are social issue films, but how many Kickstarter donors volunteer to bring about meaningful change for the social issue film they donate towards?

This led Nicco to draw a contrast between the internet, which he views as an intentional medium and TV, which he defines as a persuasive medium.

“From a political tactical perspective, TV is persuasive in a way that the internet isn’t. I think the reasons are: 1) the internet is intentional and requires focus and television is not and the second thing is just scale and repetition. Television’s reach and scale still dwarfs the internet and everyday it’s shrinking. But I could buy commercials on 300 television channels and effectively reach two thirds of America. And to reach two thirds of America the online ad buy is essentially inconceivable [as far as] what would be required, and probably practically impossible. At that equation of scale and repetition is where TV trumps the internet. And the gap is so giant that TV could decline for 10 years and still be a more effective way in reaching people in a mass media kind of way than the internet because the internet simply isn’t mass media at all.”

In this quotation Nicco offers 2 insights about the new media vs. old media. 1) The Internet causes people to dwell overwhelmingly in the present. This leads to people not caring about traditional narrative structure -- everything from reality TV to how it influences the message. 2) Television is still the most effective way to persuade and reach a mass audience since TV networks and shows have a much larger audience than websites. Although the audience for TV is steadily decreasing, it will take a significant amount of time for websites on the Internet to pass viewership on TV.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our conversation with Nicco causes us to wonder if online organizing is perhaps not the most effective platform for driving people towards action. Although the Internet has been proven to be an effective tool for fundraising, the intentional nature of the medium results in people searching for ways to contribute through small actions like donating instead of offline action like volunteering for a cause. From our experience working on the Obama campaign, complementing online organizing with old fashion door knocking, phone calls and one-on-one meetings played a key role in motivating supporters to act beyond just simply donating online. This makes us wonder if filmmakers should consider how offline meetings or phone calls with their online supporters could motivate the audience to get involved in distribution beyond just donating or watching a film. We plan to explore what approaches are most effective for building offline relationships with audience members in order to propel them towards the action of distributing films in future posts.

A Conversation with Kate West and Jacob Perlin about Grassroots Distribution and Exhibition

We recently interviewed Kate West, who is the Managing Director of Artist Public Domain, and Jacob Perlin who is the Director of the Cinema Conservancy. The mission of Artist Public Domain is to support independent cinema through three core programs: Production, Cinema Conservancy and Education.  The Cinema Conservancy is a branch within Artist Public Domain that focuses on releasing and preserving film projects that have historical and social significance and for some reason have slipped through the cracks of traditional exhibition networks or venues.  What makes Artist Public Domain and the Cinema Conservancy unique from other production and distribution companies is that their main objective is to enrich culture through supporting independent film instead of serving their own commercial interests.  For example, if there were a hot film in Sundance, they would not try to distribute the project since it would probably have a conventional distribution run at the hands of more traditional distributor. In our conversation Kate and Jacob encouraged independent filmmakers to think of grassroots distribution as not only social media, Kickstarter, YouTube and blogging, but also as grassroots exhibition.  Jacob pointed out,

“If you can get your film on the screen in Hartford Connecticut at like Cinestudio, which is a traditional audience, yeah they are going to have a built in audience and then you can use grassroots to get people there. But another way to do it is you find a non-traditional venue that is more in tune with what your film is… I think the future will be about identifying other types of venues that aren’t necessarily only movie theaters.”

Often filmmakers spend a significant amount of their time and resources trying to get their films into a straight-up movie theater when a more unconventional venue might appeal more to their target audiences and require less effort.  For example, in our case study with Jay Craven, he attracted new audiences that normally would not go to the movie theaters by screening his film in school auditoriums and gym’s that were more accessible to people living in rural towns across New England.

Kate noted, “Maybe the issue is not finding your distributor but finding your audience.”  The advent of digital screenings has made it easier and cheaper for non-traditional venues to setup their own screenings. A good venue can save thousands of dollars on P & A and the countless hours it takes to convince a conventional distributor to screen your film.

However, with so many screening options it can be difficult to determine the best venue for your film. This may be especially true when the filmmaker is unfamiliar with a city. Jacob raised the possibility of creating a network of organizers in different regions who are familiar with the non-traditional venues available to screen films.  Jacob stated,

“You have to have someone on the ground. I think some type of affiliated network where there is someone representing different regions who have more knowledge about it. Like for instance, if you have a [certain kind of] film in New York the goal is Film Forum because it gets the biggest best audience.  But what happens if your film doesn’t get in there? Well the traditional thing was always you open your film in Manhattan because Manhattan is better than Brooklyn but that isn’t the case anymore. Also, do you open your film at BAM or Nitehawk?  Someone outside of New York is not going to know the difference…there are so many iterations that only someone here could know and advice a filmmaker.”

From our experience working on the Obama campaign, field organizers played a critical role in communicating the most effective places to have staging locations that were accessible to volunteers so they could make calls and canvass for the campaign.  Similarly, a network of organizers could help filmmakers determine the best place to screen their film at inexpensive costs and appeal to their target audience.

This led Jacob to consider the possibility of making information about movie venues more transparent so filmmakers could know ahead of time what exhibitors are worth their time to pursue. Jacob reflected,

“Think about it, you’re a filmmaker and you have one person on your team who is doing all this.  Do you want them to spend 10 hours trying to get the film to play in one place where you’re never going to get the money from? Or do you want them to spend that 10 hours trying to set up other things.  There’s certain venues, why wait?  Or just try another venue in that town.  There’s no reason it shouldn’t be public. If it would take two bookings in the amount of time it takes to do that one booking, that’s the kind of information that should be known.”

One could imagine a website similar to Yelp where filmmakers rate and review different exhibitors.  This would help filmmakers determine if screening their film at a certain venue will play to their target audience, and match the time and funding they have available for the screening.  The website would also keep exhibitors in check and more sensitive to the filmmakers needs for screening their film.

Conclusion:

Our conversation with Jacob and Kate reminded us of how important it is for independent filmmakers to consider non-traditional venues for screening their movies.  As Jacob noted,

“I think that everyone is just so wrapped up in the idea that they want to have their film in the theater where the lights go down and the trailers come on and everyone has popcorn, [but] that’s just not going to happen any more. With the screens left, the stuff that is going to be dominating the screens is going to be major stuff like Fox Searchlight.”

Many renowned filmmakers have talked about how the film industry is crumbling; most recently Spielberg talked about the industry crashing because even big budget movies that dominate the box office are tanking. What if the future of independent film isn’t in movie theaters, TV or on Netflix but in the non-traditional venues that Kate and Jacob are using to distribute independent films for Artist Public Domain and Cinema Conservancy?  This of course would require organizers who are experts in non-traditional distribution to set up screening venues. In future posts we plan to explore how the grassroots volunteer structure of the Obama campaign might be able to support a system of grassroots exhibition so independent filmmakers no longer have to rely on traditional movie theaters to screen their movies.

Qualifier to Thoughts on "the Third Way"

In our interview with Chris Dorr here, he made an interesting observation that we might be wrong-minded to think about things like the modern independent film industry as needing a non-profit (or for-profit) model, that successful sites like Kickstarter represent a "third way" that is neither non-profit or for profit. He posited that it was all a kind of subsidy anyway, in the same way that ad revenue subsidizes what you watch on television. A recent article in the New York Times by Planet Money host Adam Davidson talks about how the prison industry violates standard economic practice by having someone other than the customer determine what product the customer gets. This is not really relevant to what we've been talking about, but Davidson does draw a comparison to the TV market that the show about prison he's using as a reference -- Orange is the New Black -- participates in:

“Orange Is the New Black” coincidentally reflects the television industry’s shift away from the third-party-decider economy. In the traditional broadcast environment, the customer is not the viewer but the advertiser, the one fronting the cost. The viewer’s attention, in effect, is the TV network’s product and the programming itself is a form of distraction to lull viewers into watching. This model often creates incentives for broad, unobjectionable fare that will appeal — or at least not repel — the largest number of viewers. Netflix, however, predicates its model around the actual end-user, or the person watching the show. As a result, the company needs to provide content that the viewer deems worthy of $7.99 a month.

In other words, while sites like Kickstarter may represent a third way that has actually been existing in capitalism for a long time in the form ad-supported television content, the new distributive platform of NetFlix takes the third party out of the third way and goes back to plain old "customer pays for what it gets" Adam Smith style economics. Furthermore, what's also interesting is that Davidson points out that advertisement-subsidized content might have to be broader in scope by nature of what companies are backing it; NetFlix can get very specific with who can target its show at... They don't have to appeal to everyone to justify to some users that Orange is the New Black is worth 8 bucks a month.

This ability to narrowly target must have some effect on the ability to limit production budgets as well (see our post on how the Obama campaign spent less money with more effect through targeting their TV ads), which is where there might be room for growth for the independent filmmaker. If he or she knows exactly who their target audience is or could be, there is no need to bloat a production to try to appeal to everyone. Independent can sometimes mean niche, and with the rise of the myriad television options (both on NetFlix and on your old appliance), we are in the age of niche. Ted Hope gets into a similar idea of how independent filmmakers can take advantage of the ability to target in his radio interview here; it's a topic we hope to explore more in the second half of our year-long study.

Large Scale Change Begins Door to Door

A recent article in the New Yorker about how certain historic developments in public health and medical practice (for example, the widespread use of anesthesia) came about seems ostensibly to have very little to do with our topic of grassroots distribution. However, as it is a portrait of monumental shifts that a certain industry experienced, we couldn't help but see some parallels and investigate what could be learned. Taking a step back, it often looks like the film industry is constantly in the middle of a massive tectonic plate style shift. But how can that be true? How can articles come out consistently for the last 10 years heralding the "death" or completely changing face of cinema (see statements by Soderbergh, Lucas, and Spielberg as the most recent examples)? If it has been going through revolutionary change for the last ten years and continues to change, when does the revolution end and what does it look like? Is the change different every year, or each year a chapter of the same (apparently gradual, not revolutionary) shift? For example, some people have predicted the end of theaters as venues to watch films since the early 2000's, yet their profits go up and down year by year with no real science to it.

An example of an industry where there has been a completely discernible and visible revolution that has at least reached a plateau is the music business. Napster, then iTunes, then further music sharing via the internet has brought a sea change in how music is bought and consumed, shuttering businesses and opening others, affecting how personnel at every level (from artist to executive) makes profit, and upending traditional power hierarchies.

For the most part, this hasn't quite happened in film. The internet affords us numerous new ways to watch film, but the marketing machinery of film (which is a huge part of the industry) looks largely the same, with just more of a sandbox to play in (social media sites, online press outlets, etc.). In many ways our study reflects an attempt to look hard at the problem that has not quite been solved for independent filmmakers: how to make the modern landscape of film distribution, with what technology affords it, work in a sustainable way for them? Production is happening, but how do use what we know and have now (because of the internet) to make the distribution system work for us? With the old guard and old channels of Hollywood (and even, arguably, independent film) still in place -- no recording industry style revolution having happened -- how do we take this moment and run with it?

With the stage set like that, such quotations from the article might as well be describing the film industry right now: "many ideas that violate prior beliefs are harder to embrace"... "this has been the pattern of many important but stalled ideas. They attack problems that are big but, to most people, invisible; and making them work can be tedious, if not outright painful." The plight of the independent filmmaker is largely invisible. Most Americans do not live in an area with automatic access to independent film; "automatic" here is a lazy word signifying basically that it is not in their proximity through an art house, or on one of their basic cable channels. Is it on the internet? Yes, but the internet is an intentional medium -- a user has to choose to search for something to find it. "As with most difficulties in global health care, lack of adequate technology is not the biggest problem." In other words, we have the tools, now how do we get people to use them?

"To create new norms," says the article, "you have to understand people's existing norms and barriers to change. You have to understand what's getting in their way." The norms, as we've explored in our blog, are the traditional gatekeepers. The festivals, the usual distributors, and the bottleneck effect of everyone aiming their films at them, with only a lucky few penetrating the fortress.

A conclusion of the article is that ironically, large scale change needed to happen hand-to-hand, door-to-door. The article leads off with an anecdote about anesthesia: "Proponents of anesthesia overcame [common] belief by encouraging surgeons to try ether on a patient and witness the results for themselves - to take a test drive." But a larger challenge came a century later, and not from the top down; the article spends much time with situations in which a solution has been established but just not popularized. For example, in oral rehydration therapy, it was found that a couple practices could significantly decrease the diarrhea caused by cholera in certain northern Indian areas. Then the challenge was making those practices common. The organization involved "didn't launch a mass-media campaign... It attacked the problem in a way that is routinely dismissed as impractical and inefficient: by going door to door, person by person, and just talking."

This is something we talk about a lot in grassroots ideas, as it is one crucial way that an unprecedented amount of voter contact happened in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012. In this study, we are constantly toying with the idea that a similar thing could be enacted to make up for the gaps in data or knowledge about audiences that independent filmmakers run into. But the New Yorker article is actually an example of something else -- this isn't just about "contacting" users, it's about getting them to change practices through a hands-on show-and-tell demonstration.

What are the practices that could be changed through something like this in film? Are they on the viewer side or in the distributor world? Is there a way to show the viewer that they could watch quality content if they only knew where to go on the internet? The idea of guiding a stranger through using their computer seems odd, but probably so did the idea of a stranger teaching women in India how to deal with a choleric child. Where are the opportunities in the fractured, arguably "constantly changing" landscape of independent film for door-to-door or user-to-user or filmmaker-to-filmmaker demonstrations that prove that new methods can bear fruit? Is it about lowering the barrier to entry to new websites that give access to data? Or provide premium, targeted low cost content? Or creating an anti-festival festival, where curation is democratically executed?

The point of this post is just to raise these questions, about where these opportunities could be, using the article as an indication that these kinds of things can occur on the very lowest level, one by one, to create large scale change. Instead of making large scale commentary and hoping the industry hears us and reacts accordingly, perhaps finding some small solutions and popularizing them through grassroots tactics will make more of a difference. At the very least, let this study be a rallying cry for independent filmmakers to share their best grassroots practices with their colleagues. We are all trying to answer the same big questions; but some of us must already have answers to the smaller ones.

A Conversation with Chris Dorr- How Filmmakers can go around the Gatekeepers

In our next interview, we talked to Chris Dorr about his insights on how the film industry has evolved in the digital age of distribution.  Chris has a broad background working in both the independent and studio film world. He started his career at Film Arts Foundation where he raised money to support independent filmmakers and then worked on bigger studio films at Disney and Universal Pictures.  Chris is currently working as a media consultant for MTV Networks, Tribeca Film Festival and the Canadian Film Center. Below are three questions our interview with Chris raised that relate to how the film industry is adapting to emerging digital and grassroots tools.

Q1) How do you determine if your film is better on or off the festival circuit?

Chris suggested, “One might argue the only films that really benefit from Sundance are the ones like Beasts that are the few two or three that get big, big attention and [for] everyone else if you went there or not doesn’t really matter…” Therefore if your film is unlikely to win big on the festival circuit and if you already have at least the potential for a built-in audience, you might want to consider self-distribution.

In our recent post on the feature documentary Honor Flight, we learned that they were able to set the Guinness World Record for the largest film screening by tapping into a built in network of veterans who were interested in seeing the film, which documents the compelling story of war veterans who visit the WWII Memorial in D.C. as part of the Honor Flight program.  However, when the Honor Flight team took the film on the festival circuit, the momentum for the film slowed down since they were unable to top the excitement generated by their massive debut.  In addition, festival rules inhibited them from selling DVDs at screenings or online. This makes us wonder if more independent filmmakers should consider ways to distribute their film directly to their audience instead of relying on the traditional gatekeepers at festivals to give their films recognition. Especially since the multitude of ways to distribute your film digitally has changed the traditional process of getting buzz and attention for your film.  Filmmakers can often get more attention for their film by posting a trailer on YouTube or running a Kickstarter campaign instead of waiting for a critic to review their film at a festival.

Q 2) Can you generate your own distribution circuit online?

This next questions Chris raised relates to the possibility of using digital and grassroots tools to not only fundraise, but also distribute your film.  Chris pointed out,

“One of the reasons why people want to go to Sundance is Sundance is heavily covered by all kinds of media all over the world… Now there may be the same way to gain that kind of attention without going to any of the festivals. I think there will continue to be ways to of getting around the typical gatekeepers that people can use to build their own audience. But what you have to be able to do is figure out how to get mass media attention without spending mass media dollars.”

Digital tools like Kickstarter and blogging have enabled filmmakers to avoid the traditional publicity and marketing costs that go into a festival or movie theater run. In our recent interview with self-distributing filmmaker Gregory Bayne, he discussed how he was able to gain publicity for his film, Driven, which tells the story of UFC legend Jens Pulver, by making the film available to watch online during a limited time for free.  This lead to Mixed Martial Arts websites and blogs giving the film free publicity and later Warner Brothers acquired the film so they could distribute it on demand.  Greg was able to save thousands of dollars on marketing by hosting free online screenings that made it possible for more people to see his film than any film festival could provide.

Q 3) Does the independent film industry’s financing paradigm place it in a third category, somewhere between non-profit and for-profit film? If so what does that look like, and are there precedents?

The last question our interview with Chris raised relates to why people donate to projects on crowdfunding sites like Kickstater in the first place.  Chris recognized that Kickstarter is

“Neither for profit or non-profit; it’s somewhere in the middle.  In certain cases, you’re getting X, Y or Z which are actual things, certain incentives that are built in… I think we’re wrong in thinking something is for profit or non-profit.  It’s just different kinds of subsidies.”

This insight brings into question whether people donate out of an altruistic desire to help the filmmaker which is similar to a non-profit, or to simply obtain a DVD or movie poster, or do people donate because it appeals to both their altruistic and consumer desires. The idea that using Kickstarter lies somewhere in between running a for profit and non-profit company reveals that filmmakers should not limit their film campaign to run like either. Kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites give filmmakers the potential to attract supporters who wish to donate out of an altruistic need to help others and/or their desire for a material reward.  Although there is not yet a term for this kind of fundraising, it has been utilized by many film campaigns and is especially useful for independent filmmakers who need to take advantage of all available resources to get their films made and distributed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our interview with Chris lead us to discover that although the emergence of digital tools is changing the film distribution rapidly, it also opens the door for independent filmmakers that are not afraid to go off the beaten path. However, it can be tricky to figure out which path to take when there are so many options.  This leads us to three questions we think will help independent filmmakers determine whether their film is best suited for a traditional or non-traditional distribution model, 1) Is my film likely to perform well at a top festivals? 2) Is there already a built in audience behind my film? 3) Will I be more likely to reach my target audience online or through community screenings?

Although these certainly are not the only questions filmmakers should be asking when distributing their film, it hopefully starts the process of thinking about whether you should go the traditional or non-traditional route. In future posts, we plan to look at the different categories of non-tradition distribution models and explore what models are most adaptable for certain kinds of independent film.

“Trembling Before G-d” Director Sandi DuBowski Discusses Organizing Around Film

Following our conversation with Obama guru, Jeremy Bird, we interviewed activist and independent filmmaker Sandi DuBowski. Sandi is known for directing and producing the award winning documentary, Trembling Before G-d.  The film tells the compelling story of several gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews who are trying to reconcile their sexuality with their faith. Trembling was very well received on the festival circuit and at the box office, winning seven awards including at the Berlin Film Festival and Chicago Film Festival, and broke the Film Forum’s opening day box office record by grossing more than $5,500 on the day of its single screen New York debut. Sandi later took the film on a town hall-style screening tour to schools and synagogues across the country to spark a conversation about LGBT issues among Orthodox Jews.  Similar to how Obama veteran Jeremy Bird gives consulting advice on grassroots organizing for political campaigns through his firm 270 Strategies, the success of Trembling has resulted in Sandi becoming one of the leading consultants for “issue” organizing around film. The distribution campaign for Trembling focused on the act of screening the film itself instead of an external action like passing a law or signing a petition.  This is a different approach than other issue-based films we have studied in our research like Participant Media’s film, The Visitor, which attempted to engage its audience in a number of external action campaigns on its website, i.e. offering free legal seminars to lawyers to learn how to defend immigrant detainees.  In contrast, Sandi decided to focus the campaign on distributing the film itself because, “Trembling was something that had a lot of resistance, so it really was about building a conversation as opposed to something like having the court law come in and change how the U.S. military deals with rape…” Sandi was able to channel the enthusiasm of LGBT community towards the action of distributing his film by focusing the goal of the campaign to break the silence of a community that many people felt needed to be more vocal. Sandi then formed metrics to gauge the progress of distribution and translate the success of the film to supporters and investors.  Sandi reflects,

“There is a whole growing field in  ‘How do you evaluate this? How do you measure it?’ And for me it was like, if I could create a conversation in a public institution that never had a conversation before, that for me was like a statistical marker of success. If I could get a school that never discusses homosexuality to really have all the teachers have a conversation about it with the principal and social workers, that was a victory.”

From our perspective working on the Obama campaign, metrics for canvassing, phone calls and fundraising played a critical role in giving supporters an understanding of how their time and money contributed to the campaign’s success. Similarly, Sandi shared the stories about people who went through transformative experiences at Trembling screenings to translate the success of screenings in Jewish Orthodox institutions.  These stories helped motivate supporters to contribute money and time to the distribution of the film.  As Sandi states,

“We consistently had a proven track record.  Were able to tell the story of the success about how people’s lives were really changing. It was very much turning a movie into a movement… That strategy for fundraising was throughout the whole process of the film, so it just felt like a continuation of the way I had worked.”

Instead of waiting on a distributor to support his screenings financially, Sandi raised funding on his own so that he could hire a network of outreach directors that helped organize screenings throughout the country.  Sandi discussed, “Everywhere we went, I would hire outreach directors.  I got my distributor to pay me to be an outreach director.  I hired in New York, I hired in Boston, I hired in L.A, I hired in San Francisco, I hired in Chicago, so I built a whole team nationwide, as well as in Canada.”  This is similar to how the Obama campaign hired organizers during the primary.  Sandi would hire organizers 6 weeks before a new screening so they could build publicity and work with different organizations to plan for the event.  He was able to sustain his team of outreach directors by tapping into various financial sources during the distribution process through grants, private donors, grassroots emails and donations.

Sandi also touched on the recurring theme in our research that new technologies make it even more critical for filmmakers to build a team that help manage the many tools available for distribution. Sandi observed,

"Now there’s such a menu of options to mobilize an audience…I think capturing the audience is really important, capturing the data in that room. And really being able to record that data, and having someone on board who can actually do all that social media work and that data recording and that data basing is what we all forget, and then we’re all flooded with information, flooded with data and we have no way of organizing it….I think team building, capacity building is so important right now, and it’s really important to think about how we’re going to run like a mini NGO with our film.”

Sandi’s example proves that filmmakers can build their own distribution team by being nimble with financing and embracing a grassroots structure. We wonder if Sandi’s successful distribution strategy of hiring outreach directors to organize community screenings could be expanded even further through empowering a team of volunteers.  In our recent interview with Jeremy Bird, he highlighted four key grassroots principles that emphasized the importance of data and sharing real responsibility with volunteers. Bird mentioned that what separated the Obama campaign from other grassroots operations in the past is the inherent sense of ownership and trust built into the core of its volunteer structure which is named “The Snowflake Model.’ In the ‘Snowflake Model’ volunteers were assigned to neighborhood teams and given specific roles like Phonebank Captain, Canvass Captain and Neighborhood Team Leader that each played a significant role in the historic turnout efforts of the campaign.  Could a similar model be adapted to empower audiences to get more involved in the distribution of film?  We plan to explore this question in future posts.