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!

Jeremy Bird, 2012 Obama National Field Director, Talks Grassroots Organizing and Film: Part 2

In our previous post we talked to Jeremy Bird, the former National Field Director of the Obama campaign in 2012, and discussed best practices from the Obama campaign that could help filmmakers distribute their films. In this post we will discuss our takeaways and conclusion from the interview. Takeaways

From our interview with Jeremy Bird, it is clear that filmmakers have 3 main disadvantages compared to political campaigns: 1) In film it is hard to access data and it is not clear what data sources will be most effective for targeting audiences, 2) You need experts that can interpret and use data to create models and 3) Models have to be customized to a specific campaign and this takes a lot of money and resources that independent filmmakers do not have.

However, Bird also recalled that when he first worked for the Obama campaign as the Field Director of South Carolina during the primary, they had to build their network and entire operation from scratch like many independent filmmakers when distributing their films. Bird went on to highlight 4 best practices from the campaign that filmmakers could adapt to distribute their movies.

1) Empowering volunteers by sharing access to more data and giving them real responsibility. Bird stressed that volunteers form the foundation of any true grassroots organization and need to be motivated through a sense of trust, responsibility and ownership. One of the major reasons the Obama campaign was able to effectively collect data and target persuadable voters was because organizers recruited an army of volunteers to call and knock on doors to figure out who in the universe were supporters. Without volunteers on the ground to collect information about voters, the data team would have had a far less accurate model of targeting persuadable voters.  This can only be done by giving real responsibility to volunteers and making them understand they are an integral part of the campaign.

2) Organizing consumer data to target potential supporters of a film. This can be the starting point for creating a data set of supporters for a specific film. For example, Bird mentioned the Obama campaign was able to look at consumer data and determine that someone who drove a Prius car is environmentally friendly and therefore a likely Obama supporter. The same type of modeling could be helpful for independent film, i.e. someone who liked the cult film Blue Velvet might also want to see another cult film like, Donnie Darko.  Examining consumer information further, someone who subscribes to Filmmaker Magazine or the Sundance Channel are avid indie movie goers and far more likely to want to see your independent film compared to the average consumer.

3) Creating multiple narratives about your film that market to both broad and niche audiences. The Obama campaign was very creative in forming many sub constituency groups like, Students for Obama, Latino’s for Obama and Veterans for Obama just to name a few. These constituency groups helped attract a diverse range of supporters by making them feel included. At the same time, the Obama campaign used messaging like “Change We Can Believe In” to appeal to a broad audience. In contrast, filmmakers often limit themselves by trying to decide if they should market their film as a story that appeals to the masses or only small niche audiences. The example of the Obama campaign suggests filmmakers might not have to chose and should market to both mainstream and specific groups. For example, filmmakers could cut multiple trailers of their film, one that appeals to the mainstream and other trailers that focus on certain themes that appeal to specific niche groups.

4) Using commit cards to motivate audiences to opt-in to watching your film at home. The Obama campaign increased the turnout of sporadic Democrats, people who have a poor record of voting; by asking them fill out commit cards that were eventually mailed back to their house to remind them they committed to voting. The same strategy could be used to motivate audiences to watch a film at their home. Filmmakers could create a sense of urgency around signing commit cards by sharing goals for number of VOD rentals, or hits on YouTube. For example, “commit to watching ‘Glory at Sea’ March 30th, and help us break our goal of 10,000 views.” Once someone signs an online commit card to watch a film on a certain date, it would then be sent back to them in an email to remind them of their commitment to see the film.

Conclusion

At the end of the interview, Jeremy Bird explained that with digital media the Obama campaign was trying to

“Create our own channel. When you have 20 million people on your email list, you’re no longer reliant on the establishment. We weren’t scared of things that were said about us in the bubble world because we had our own mechanism to distribute information.”

We have studied many independent filmmakers that have created their own distribution channels in order to overcome the established marketplace of Hollywood. However, many of these filmmakers are at a huge disadvantage from the start since there is no organization that can provides them with the necessary data, resources and knowledge they need to run an effective film campaign.

In contrast, political candidates can hire companies like 270 Strategies for consulting advice, and organizations like OFA and the DNC already have large voter databases and email lists they can tap in order to build their campaigns. This makes us wonder if a similar consulting firm like 270 Strategies or an umbrella hub like Organizing for Action, might be helpful for the film world.

However, how would the organization build its email lists and tap into data sources that independent filmmakers could use to grow and target their audiences? Would the organization consist of mostly of people in the film industry, or people from the non-profit and community organizing world? We plan to explore these questions in later posts.

-Michael, Josh and Carl