Calculating the Economic Value of Social Benefits

In doing more research about non profits and Steve Rothschild's book The Non Nonprofit I came across this article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. I felt it was worth showing because most people don't think about the economic value a non profit has when they do work that provides a social benefit. Mr. Rothchild is able to articulate that there is economic value that goes for being the social benefits of a nonprofit.

How Nonprofit Economic Value Creates New Capital Sources

The following is an excerpt from the book.

By Steve Rothschild

Calculating the Economic Value of Social Benefits

Quality nonprofits create benefits to society by addressing social problems, and virtually all the social benefits they create have monetary or economic value that can be identified and measured. A nonprofit that calculates this value can leverage its success into more effective fundraising, revenue generation, pay-for-performance relationships, and better ways of capitalizing growth.

An organization creates economic value when it increases revenue or eliminates costs, or both, for a stakeholder. These benefits typically accrue over time. The three components—increased revenue, decreased cost, and time—hold true whether the organization operates as a for-profit or a nonprofit.

Virtually every effective nonprofit creates economic value. However, there are some vitally important organizations—like art museums, zoos, and orchestras—where the economic value would be extraordinarily difficult, perhaps impossible, to establish. Of course, these organizations are essential to the community’s quality of life and have an intrinsic value. But they also create jobs and contribute to the economy in many ways. How do you determine the specific cash value they generate for state government or some other entity?

Read the entire article.

Four Stories That Show Content Is Changing

Burning Love - the final chapterThis week marked the final episode of what might be my favorite web series of all time. Yahoo made a huge splash with this original web series and I would go so far as to say this one--produced by Ben Stiller's Red Hour Films-- may have been a game changer in terms of getting people to look differently at the digital content space. http://screen.yahoo.com/burning-love/

Hulu - The Booth At The End Vuguru TV/New Media studio Vuguru launches season 2 of it's acclaimed series The Booth At The End on Hulu. If you've been on the site, you'll notice the prime real estate the series has on the platform's masthead (impressive considering it's competing with network and studio content).

http://www.hulu.com/the-booth-at-the-end

Netflix begins production of new season of Arrested Development Need I say more?

Fanhattan 2.0 A major update comes to arguably the best content discovery app on iOS. Fanhattan may not be the ultimate answer, but it suggests a world where all your accounts are tied into one beautiful interface and all your content is accessible and discoverable. And word is that a desktop version is on it's way... download now and stay tuned. http://www.fanhattan.com/

Are movie studios going the way of the dinosaurs?

CNBC posted an article this week that stepped, one by one, through the supposed core functions of a movie studio to showed the ways they are being disrupted. Allow me to paraphrase...

• FINANCE: co-financing deals are in abundance and companies like Netflix and Amazon are diving headfirst into the original content game (see the upcoming David Fincher/Kevin Spacey original series 'House of Cards'). In simplest terms, anyone can write a check.

• PRODUCTION: Digital technology has made production less expensive than ever. You no longer need a movie studio to get your hands on a camera.

• DISTRIBUTION: As home video turns into 1's and 0's, distribution is being democratized in a big way. With the right deals in place, a new player can distribute a film into almost every American home for virtually no cost (via Cable and Broadband VOD providers and game consoles).  Furthermore, audiences are becoming more willing to consume their content on smaller, more personal screens.  There may be no substitute for theatrical but even companies like Tugg are starting to emerge with models that diffuse exhibitor risk by letting audiences demand and organize screenings for the film gets booked.

• MARKETING: This arguably the strongest and only remaining true core competency that the studios retain. Thus far, social media and digital marketing has not replaced the 8-9 figure ad spends that studios are using to launch tent poles... but if marketing is the only differentiation, will we see these behemoths spend each other into the ground trying to explain what John Carter and Battleship are actually about?

As the music labels struggle to reinvent themselves as artists no longer need them to make records or connect with their fans, the movie studios have a major challenge ahead. How can they harness the technology that is tearing down the walls they have build to run more efficiently and do what they are supposed to be good at... creating, distributing and marketing great entertainment?  Lest they go the way of the labels, the magazines, the dinosaurs.

Full article here 

"—to whom a particular film is relevant—"

Gathr is a self-described "love child of Netflix and Kickstarter." Its self-described core service is "critical mass ticketing." It's basically a platform for crowd-funded screenings of finished films (old and new), much like Tugg. (Here are descriptions of the two platforms in tandem--sorry, I couldn't find an actual comparison. When I get to the in depth platform analysis stage of my research, I'll try to pinpoint the respective services and company dynamics that make the two platforms distinct. All I can tell from the surface is that Tugg is farther ahead in its collection of titles and relationships with established exhibitors.) Gathr's mission is plainly dope. They are providing the tools for filmmakers to (comfortably) stop asking permission of a system that is "archaic, inefficient, top down, and completely misaligned with the interests of the vast majority of filmmakers and their investors" to get their movies seen. But they also might be overestimating how currently well-suited our internets are for a filmmaker (or his team) to promote a movie adequately enough to achieve the tipping point for a screening. More on that in a bit (a little bit more in this particular blog post and a lot more in my CRI research project).

Fanhattan is (from what I can tell--it's currently only available for the iPad that I still don't think I need for whatever ridiculous reason) a pretty sophisticated and helpful aggregator of aggregators--it's like a pimped out, user-friendly CanIStreamIt. No, it really isn't anything like CanIStreamIt except that both share the daunting goal of bringing order to the chaos of content streaming and renting/purchasing. Fanhattan integrates not only with Netflix and Hulu but HBO, TV Everywhere (Time Warner and Comcast's platform for cable customers to get exclusive online content), and most TV networks (ABC, NBC, CW, etc.).

Fanhattan is further integrated with Facebook's Open Graph, but I think their implementation of the graph seems (again: no iPad) more thoughtful than the ubiquitous and eerily reductive "like" and "comment" features on which most Open Graph integrated platforms settle. Fanhattan's implementation seems more thoughtful because it is in service of its "watchlist" function. The watchlist is a curated list of movies and tv shows (old, current, in production) that Fanhattan's users create in order to receive updates about when and where the content becomes available. Users can also share watchlists, which renders all that liking and commenting meaningful since in this context, these functions can actually lead to someone discovering something or some similar kind of serendipity. People don't want to "like" your shit; people want to talk to each other about why they like or don't like your shit. (And it's really not all that clear to anyone why a high number of "likes" is at all meaningful. Unless I'm missing something--please comment if I am.) Communities function on meaningful experience, and meaningful (online) experiences are implicitly social.

Here's an interesting article on Gathr.

And one on Fanhattan.

From the Tribeca Future of Film blogpost on Gathr:

[Box office statistics are] a real shame, because word of mouth, online media, social networking, and traditional marketing ensure that millions of people nationwide—to whom a particular film is relevant—will have heard about a film’s theatrical release.

I like the concept of "relevance" these days as little as I like the word "niche." Enough case studies definitely exist out there which prove that if you can just tweet enough to that fervent network of neocon surf enthusiasts, you will be able to Gathr and Tugg them enough to pay your investors back. But the goal shouldn't be to (only) acknowledge the myopic few to whom your particular film is relevant, but to find the folks who care about your work because it's authentic and good (oh yeah, by the way, I'm totally assuming that your work is authentic and good. If it isn't, it has as little business being Gathr'd or Tugg'd as it does being platform released by Fox Searchlight).

Gathr and Fanhattan are completely different tools, but for either to survive as platforms or have any real value, it needs to recognize how its users (its community, perhaps--I still need to figure out what this means) want to play with its offerings and thus which tools it should offer to quietly facilitate that playtime. Fanhattan's "watchlist" is an inherently social and useful tool that may place a necessary focus on user interaction and subsequent discovery. Gathr might need to recalibrate its tools in order to service the filmmakers and fans who don't or don't care to belong to niches. Gathr's founder himself notes in the Tribeca blogpost: "After all, there are 343 cities in the U.S. with 100,000+ people, and there are more than 3,300 towns in the U.S. with 25,000+ people." That's a whole lot of people to whom tons of particular films may or may not be relevant--how can we empower them to talk, share, and figure out for themselves what they want to see?

The more I explore this question, the scarier our delimiting social networks become. But, more on that (and the Slow Web, and the fact that You Are Not a Gadget) in another post soon.

7 For-Profit Principles That Build Nonprofit Success

In thinking about my research it seems that learning about non-profits and how they work is an important aspect. Mostly because universities are not-for-profit institutions and therefore live under guidelines in order to keep their non-profit status and ability to raise money through tax deductible donations. In google searching the word "nonprofit" I came across The Non Nonprofit by Steven Rothschild. The Non Nonprofit shares the same business principles that drive the world's best companies, showing how they can (and should) be applied to the realm of nonprofits. Here are his seven principles:

1. Have a Clear and Appropriate Purpose

Purpose establishes an organization’s rationale for existence. It is what an organization strives to achieve, and once that purpose is established, it doesn’t waver.

2: Measure What Counts 

Metrics have a way of focusing our attention. In a world of limited resources, it’scritical to measure what counts because organizations get what they measure.

3: Be Market Driven

There are many elements of marketing—advertising, brand management, and public relations, to name a few—but the most important one is the least often understood by traditional nonprofits: serving your customers.

4: Create Mutual

AccountabilitySuccessful organizations practice mutual accountability with every stakeholder, whether clients, participants, customers, donors, staff, or government.

5: Support Personal Empowerment

An empowered individual can manage his or her emotions, thinking, and behavior to achieve positive, long-term life goals.

6: Create Economic Value from Social Benefit

Many are accustomed to thinking about social good in terms of moral imperative rather than economic benefit, but every improvement in social good does in fact have monetary value.

7: Be Learning Driven

Great organizations aren’t distinguished by getting it right the first time. A learning-driven approach is an ongoing part of the strategy of great organizations.

 http://steverothschild.org/index.php/principles

Weekend of July 17 - US B.O. vs. Indie B.O.

US BOX OFFICE- WEEKEND OF JULY 17

TW

LW

Title (click to view)

Studio

Weekend Gross

% Change

Theater Count /Change

Average

Total Gross

Budget*

Week #

1	N	Ice Age: Continental Drift	Fox	$46,629,259	-	3,881	-	$12,015	$46,629,259	-	1
2	1	The Amazing Spider-Man	Sony	$34,628,104	-44.2%	4,318	-	$8,019	$200,500,351	$230	2
3	2	Ted	Uni.	$22,410,855	-30.4%	3,303	+47	$6,785	$159,257,250	$50	3
4	3	Brave	BV	$11,160,522	-43.1%	3,392	-499	$3,290	$196,061,319	$185	4
5	4	Savages (2012)	Uni.	$9,393,840	-41.4%	2,635	+7	$3,565	$32,125,290	$45	2

US INDIE BOX OFFICE- WEEKEND OF JULY 17

TITLE	DISTRIBUTOR	LOCATIONS	GROSS	PER LOCATION	OVERALL GROSS
Moonrise Kingdom	Focus Features	924	$3,704,507	$4,009	$32,483,002
To Rome With Love	Sony Pictures Classics	744	$2,469,235	$3,319	$8,587,862
Bernie	Millennium Entertainment	103	$215,932	$2,096	$8,106,280
Intouchables	The Weinstein Company	83	$356,333	$4,293	$3,581,488
Beasts Of The Southern Wild	Fox Searchlight	81	$790,535	$9,760	$1,692,675

Some thoughts:

Top 5 movies in the country had a stronger per screen average than the top 5 indies ($6,735 vs. $4,695), despite the latter categories' much-reduced theater counts.  "Ice Age"'s 12K/screen is flat out impressive, as is the nearly 10K/screen pulled in by the expanding "Beasts of the Southern Wild."

No surprise that critics preferred the indie offerings, but not by as much as you might think.  Top 5 indies boast a 79% Rotten Tomatoes average (hurt by the "To Rome With Love" score of 44%) vs. 70% for the domestic top 5.  The idea that 70% of critics liked the top 5 movies in the country over a summer weekend seems remarkable.  I'll take it.

Overall a good weekend for well-liked movies.

Group Watching > Solo Lurking

I just read this article on TechCrunch about new movie- (as well as future book-, app-, game-, and tv-) recommendation platform called Foundd. And now I'm here typing in this little box because Foundd has a pretty unique value add for this space, one that's intriguing enough to have me here typing in this little box now. The value add is group recommendations:

Berlin-based Foundd is a new movie recommendation service launching this week, which not only finds you movies you would like to watch, but also helps a group decide on a movie they can watch together. It’s an interesting twist on the concept of personalized recommendation engines, like those created by Netflix or Amazon, for example, which seemingly presume that watching movies is a solitary experience. While that’s sometimes true, you’re just as often watching movies with family or friends…and arguing about what to watch.

I wasn't able to actually test out this group recommending/viewing mechanism since after onboarding I found myself with zero Foundd friends [ :( ], but I'm still excited to see a platform in the recommendation/content space whose founders are trying to build into its architecture an understanding of what its community needs to function comfortably. A quick stroll through the Foundd world does not reveal beyond the group recommendation function much more of an attempt to differentiate itself from the bigger player Netflixes or smaller renegade Filmasters of this space.

Still, it's clear that the Berlinese men of Foundd are thinking about their community's needs and group behavior generally, and it will be cool to see if/how they move more towards making Foundd a real-time community experience instead of another static (if helpful) algorithmic lurk-zone.

"Carmina o Revienta": multi-platform release shakes Spanish Film Industry

Try googling Pedro Almodóvar's last film, "La Piel que Habito" (The skin I live in), released almost a year ago, and you'll get 5 Million hits. Now do the same with Paco León's directorial debut, "Carmina o Revienta": 8,5 Million hits on the search engine. Surprised? Wait until you hear this: the film was released just a week ago.

Everybody is talking about "Carmina o Revienta" in Spain. Not only because the film is fantastic -it won three awards at the prestigious Festival de Málaga-, but especially because it has shaken the whole industry by being the first Spanish film to be released simultaneously in Theaters, in DVD and online.

Paco León is a very well-known comedy actor in Spanish TV, mainly due to his role in the sitcom "Aída". He wanted to try what it felt to be behind the camera, so he went ahead and produced, wrote and directed an 80-minute mockumentary about the life and miracles of his amazing mother, Carmina, and his sister, the actress María León. When he faced the distribution of the film, he knew he wanted to try something different. So he asked his followers on twitter (over half a million) how they would be willing to watch his film, what viewing platforms would they use, how much they would pay for it, etc. He gathered the different responses, gave it a little thought... and went on to challenge the industry as nobody had done before in his country.

"Carmina o Revienta" is the first true multi-platform release in Spain. It came out in Theaters for the usual price (7€), on DVD for a reduced price of 5,95€ and online -through different services- for 1,95€. After it's first weekend, the film was the most viewed in iTunes, the most viewed in the online platform Filmin, the most viewed in Canal+ movie-on-demand service, had sold over 80% of the DVD copies and was the sixth best movie in the ratio 'number of copies/tickets sold' in movie Theaters. An incredible success for a film that cost under 40.000€.

There are many lessons to be learned from this experience, but one of them is extremely interesting: Paco León gave a choice to his audience. Surrounded as we live by screens and multimedia devices, it doesn't sound right that we are forced to go to a Theatre to enjoy a new release. "Carmina o Revienta" simply gave us the alternative to see the film wherever we preferred, without having to wait for months for the DVD or the legal streaming. It also proved that there are creative and non-punitive ways to fight piracy (and make money at the same time). As León says in his last tweet, "My mother has been more effective in fighting piracy than the Governement's Piracy Act".

"Renaissance" instead of an "Apocalypse"

During the 2012 LA Film Festival last month Cinedigm CEO, Chris McGurk, gave a highly intelligent and hope filled keynote address. He broke from the traditional gloom regarding the future of the film industry. McGurk pointed out that “the only thing Hollywood has done better than building an industry is predicting its imminent demise.” “Doomsayers seem to be proclaiming the Seven Signs of the coming Indie Apocalypse” but McGurk said he sees “the Seven Signs of its Renaissance” — thanks to lower production and distribution costs because of the “digital revolution.” McGurk sees enormous targeted opportunities for filmmakers, distributors, marketers and exhibitors. And variety that can satisfy broadly different kinds of people who love movies. Watch the entire speech here:

[youtube]IGD7nUbbHng[/youtube]

5 Startups Changing the Film Industry

1. Kickstarter While the impact Kickstarter has had on indie film financing and distribution is hardly a new story, no list would be complete without a mention of this massively influential crowd-funding platform. Kickstarter claims no ownership over the projects it helps, opting instead for a percentage of funds raised. According to Wikipedia, as of July 03, 2012, there were over 62,000 launched projects (3,973 in progress), with a success rate of 44%. The completed successful projects had raised a total of $229M.

2. Tugg

In short: crowd sourced exhibition. Tugg is a platform that allows users to create film events at their local theaters, and harness their social networks to drive the required RSVP numbers that allow the film to play. It takes the risk of distributing a small film off the exhibitors (attendance is guaranteed) and offers a new self-distribution model for independent filmmakers while bringing unique films to local theaters. When Tugg works, everyone wins.

3.  Milyoni

Considered one of the leaders in social entertainment, Milyoni helps customers convert social media fans into paying customers. They have created "social VOD experiences"--featuring a VOD movie enhanced with games and sharable features--for Miramax (Pulp Fiction), Magnolia Pictures (Marley) and Universal Pictures (The Big Lebowski). In partnership with Starz Media they recently launched the first every 3D movie on Facebook (Dimension's Piranha 3DD) day and date with its theatrical release. Milyoni is betting on Facebook as the next great place to watch movies and they are leading the charge to make the experience unique and social.

4. MoPix

Filling the gaps of digital self-distribution and digital bonus features, MoPix allows content creators of all kinds (independent filmmakers, chefs, fitness instructors) to distribute video and related content via the app equivalent of special edition DVD's. Numbers show that digital ownership is having a tough time catching on but this kind of thinking may help reverse the trend.

5. Viggle

Buzz-worthy social TV startup Viggle is built around a loyalty rewards program for watching TV that offers real world rewards--from movie tickets to gift cards at iTunes and Amazon--for watching your favorite shows. The longer you keep watching (Viggle's finger-printing technology can tell) the more you earn.  I would not be surprised if companies like this start seeing chunks of studio P&A spends in the near future.

Whoopi's Wisdom, Or Why Famous Folks Who Don't Need Them Are Turning To Crowds

In this IndieWire interview, Whoopi Goldberg explains her decision to use Kickstarter to fund "I Got Somethin To Tell You," her documentary on Moms Mabley, a black, female comedian who influenced Whoopi and many other comedians with a penchant for addressing some of the less comfy issues of their times. In discussing why she turned to the crowd, Whoopi notes:

I could have gone back to one of the cable stations, but what that means is you don't get to do the project the way you want to. This project is about the impact that Moms had on people. Impact on comics. It's less about her life story and about what she brought. She was the only female comic for about 40 years! That's never been celebrated and it's never been celebrated as a woman. She was on the cutting edge, a pioneer, talking about things that nobody was really talking about at the time and how she did it. So that's what this is about.

The sentiment here (which is similarly apparent in remarks like "[My crowd-funders] want to see good stuff and they don't mind contributing what they can," or "This isn't a little bullshitty project") is uniquely that of someone who is established and connected but still choosing to step outside of a system that can work but not without an often impeding amount of begging and meetings and opinions and begging. Whoopi, like Paul, Amanda, and Louis, simply gets it: if I can get my fans to fund what I do directly, I can do it how I want to do it, plus I can give them rewards, shield them from middle-man screwing, and other such heart-warming perks. Of course simply getting it is easier if you already have a lot of loyal fans, but one of the goals of my CRI project is to figure out how filmmakers can find the folks who love what they do--to figure out how to define community and build it. So, stay tuned.

For now, back to Whoopi and co. If you're reading this, you're undoubtedly reading lots of other writing on the disruption, the disintermediation that these established artists' decisions to turn to their fans for direct support signify. Chris Dorr, who has generously shared his expert perspective with me and helped to hone the approach and scope of my CRI project, has some really fantastic related posts like this one on Amanda Palmer and "True Fans."

I want to add an observation to this dialogue that is simple but speaks to a critical and oddly overlooked aspect of direct to fan activity: these famous folks who don't need them are turning to crowds, in part, because they (the folks) love them (the crowds) back. There is something (the something I am here trying to define) that is really refreshing about Whoopi, Amanda, and Paul's frank, gloriously unironic campaign videos, about Louis' sincere, typo-ridden emails. There are actual people poking out of the screen, people who aren't particularly polished or aware of themselves, but people aren't supposed to be this way--brands are. PEOPLE ARE NOT BRANDS. More on that in just a bit.

Whoopi emphasizes that her project isn't little and bullshitty because she knows her fans "want to see good stuff." I wonder if every filmmaker with a Kickstarter campaign really believes that (or has at least considered whether) the crowds of potential fans whom they are trying to reach wouldn't find their project little and bullshitty. This is not to say that people should make what they think their fans want them to make, but it is to say (very much so) that once an artist starts asking the crowd for something, he has an (ethical? strategic? humane?) imperative to respect and understand the people who comprise it. Whoopi wants the freedom to make what she wants, but she consistently refers back to the fact that what she wants is what the fans want (and is what Moms delivered): something edgy, discomforting, and honest--"so that's what this is about." She recognizes that in the particular story of "I Got Somethin' To Tell You," the fans want the thing that they can themselves fund, and this thing will be different from the thing that the cable station would have funded. So, that's what this is, and it's pretty special.

I think the "something" that these artists all seem to possess in their campaigning and which I'm trying to define here is an open and honest appreciation for fans, an inherent respect for the people who are into what they're ostensibly into because they're making it. The most incredible thing that the internet has done for filmmakers is that it has allowed them to actively give a shit about their fans. Crowd-funding tools, with Kickstarter at the helm, seem at this point to be the only online platforms that realize how incredible the human reality of this disintermediation is and thus build the tools into their platforms to facilitate seamless connection.

The more I read that filmmakers need to "brand" themselves and have more of a "presence" so they can be "relevant" (and other words that make me feel ill), the more I understand why so many of us are loathe to explore direct to fan options. That said, many of these options themselves seem built around the premise of branding and selling. Throughout the course of my research, I am going to look deeply at platforms and tools that are trying to support real connection and community, as well as ones that want to help filmmakers find their fans. I'll also explore what connection and community are as concepts and practices in both real reality and the digital one, so that my analysis of these platforms counts for something (and so that I feel less pretentious using both words ad nauseam in one blog post). I am happy to share my working bibliography and very happy to receive feedback--just let me know. I will post it once it's slightly less of a mess.

Thanks for reading!

The changing tide of digital distribution (June 2012)

A glance at the trades tells us everything we need to know about the current state of independent film distribution... it's changing. Cases and points:

Title: BIG EASY EXPRESS

• What: A music documentary that follows a ten-day road trip (via train) with Mumford and Sons, Edward Sharpe & the Magnetic Zeros, and Old Crow Medicine Show
• Release: "Run in reverse" method by which the film debuts on iTunes today as an exclusive.  Press and attention is white hot and iTunes is cross promoting the title alongside music by the artists, all of whom seem natural fits for the iTunes audience.  DVD/BluRay is to follow next month, followed by digital/VOD at a later date.
• The Takeaway: One great partner can be the difference-maker in terms of a successful launch.

Title: 1,2,3... FRANKIE GO BOOM!

• What: A comedy starring Charlie Hunnam, Lizzy Kaplan, Chris O'Dowd, Chris Noth and Whitney Cummings that premiered at SXSW.
• Release: Through a new joint venture between  Variance Films (a theatrical distributor) and Gravitas (a digital one), the film will premiere on VOD in September, followed by a theatrical release in October.
• The Takeaway: The Magnolia premiere on VOD model is spreading downstream.

Title: THE PAPERBOY

• What: Lee Daniels' controversial follow up to the critically and financially successful Precious, the movie is an erotic thriller starring Zach Efron, Nicole Kidman, Macy Gray and John Cusack.
• Release: After failing to receive an acceptable post-Cannes offer, Millenium Entertainment will be self-distributing the title in the fall.
• The Takeaway: Even specialty distributors are exercising extreme caution in picking up risky titles.  For such movies, the distribution may have to get as creative as the material itself.

Releasing your film on the Internet... for free?!

Director Dean Peterson just released his first feature "Incredibly Small" on Vimeo. Yep, online. And for free. When his Producer Todd Sklar -admirably holding himself- simply asked for a good reason to do so, Peterson sent him a list of seven. All of them make very good points, but two are especially interesting:

4. This movie is the product of the crowd sourced, internet 2.0, ‘other buzz word’ culture of the internet through and through. We raised money on Kickstarter, garnered an audience and fan base on Tumblr and Reddit connected with fans on tour through Twitter and Facebook, and if Google+ made any sense, I’m sure we’d find a way to utilize that too. Now it seems fitting to stay true to that spirit and bring it all back full circle and put this motherfucker on Vimeo or YouTube right?

7. Torrents. Piracy is viewed as a huge problem in the film industry but what if we turn it into a boon? If you go on Pirate Bay there are over 10,000 people who are currently downloading The Hunger Games, who I’m sure the studios view as villains but we should view them as potential audience members. They’re our friends! This is a huge untapped group that I think it would be a mistake to ignore. They’re going to download movies no matter what we do, so we should at least provide them with OUR movie to download and watch versus one of the other ones. Let’s put a super hi res version of the movie on torrent sites and try to get something from them. An email address, a donation, a DVD sale or them blogging or tweeting about it or using that X-Box headset thingy to tell their Halo friends about it. That’s better than nothing.

The full article, in the section "Truly Free Film" of Ted Hope's blog. And here's the full version of the film:

INCREDIBLY SMALL - Free Independent Feature Film from Dean Peterson on Vimeo.

VHX Announces New Platform for Independent Filmmakers

"VHX wants to be your dashboard for the entire Internet," wrote TechCrunch, and most other tech blogs more or less overtly, in describing the video discovery platform that aims to "combine the best parts of the TV experience with the best of the web." VHX stands apart from the quadrillion or so other platforms who seek to do the same in large part due to its simple user-interface which does, indeed, incorporate the best parts of the TV experience (ie watching stuff without constant distraction) and the web (networked curation aesthetically reminiscent of a Pinterest board).

VHX has announced a new service for artists and filmmakers. Few details have been publicly disclosed, but VXH founder Jamie Wilkinson shared his vision for his filmmaker distribution platform service with TechCrunch:

VHX hopes to provide an alternative, Wilkinson told me by phone, by allowing content owners to create beautiful, highly branded user experiences of their own.

“Before, the Internet was where you went if you couldn’t get a distribution deal,” Wilkinson said. But now, “creators are realizing that they no longer need the distributors to reach an audience… Creators are coming around and realizing that people are really happy to open their wallets.”

I'm excited to see how this platform develops. Though VHX's offerings are similar to that of many of the other direct distribution platforms in this over-crowded market, VHX's current user interface and design are superior, and their investor activity is promising. They stand pretty poised to allow independent filmmakers to share their work on their own terms a la Louis CK or Aziz Ansari (whose direct download was VHX-fuelled).

Read the full TechCrunch article here

Death of the Movie Star?... or not

This weekend, two new wide releases--movies that on paper would have looked like as sure a thing as Hollywood could hope for--rolled into theaters and landed with a thud. The first was "Rock of Ages," a fun and music-fueled romp based on a blockbuster musical and starring a strong ensemble cast with Tom Cruise at the center. The second was "That's My Boy"-- an Adam Sandler movie that looks about as Adam Sandler as movies get. Despite once high hopes for New Line and Sony, these titles came in at $15M and $13M respectively, beaten swiftly for the top spot by Dreamworks' second frame of "Madagascar 3." Every time this happens (and it has happened before and will happen again), there are countless articles written about the death of the Star System as Hollywood knows it. It may just not be that simple and perhaps it all just goes to prove William Goldwyn's point that "no one knows anything." But still... hard to wonder after looking at these numbers whether some re-balancing is in order.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2012/06/17/death-of-the-movie-star/

Final wrap up of Sundance deals

I ran across this article on The Film Collaborative blog. Many filmmakers have dreams of getting into Sundance and leaving with a distribution deal. There are legendary tales of the late night deals being made up on the mountain. I found this article hopeful because in recent years movies haven't been selling like they use to. Since the 2012 Sundance Film Festival every feature film in the US Dramatic Competition has found a US Distributor.

Final wrap up of Sundance deals – June 13th, 2012

This piece was researched, compiled and written by TFC associate Bryan Glick.

Back in March we looked at the films that were bought out of Sundance and since then the deals have kept coming, including some from major players like Sony Pictures Classics (SPC)  and IFC.

Among the companies making fresh acquisitions, Tribeca Films nabbed North American rights to two US Dramatic competition entries, “The Comedy” and “For Ellen”. In fact every film in the US Dramatic Competition now has a US Distributor. SPC secured worldwide rights to “Smashed” for $1,000,000 and Sony Worldwide opened their eyes to  US Rights and Canada Ancillary for “The First Time”. Music Box bought “Keep The Lights On” for North America, in what is certainly a change of pace from their typical fare.  Meanwhile “Filly Brown” became the fourth film to get bought by Indomina who is making it clear that they are presence in the indie world. They have worldwide rights for the film. The Late Adam Yauch’s Oscilloscope got the North American rights to the opening night film “Hello I Must Be Going” and IFC showed they could acquire the entire festival if they wanted to by adding North American rights for “Save the Date” to their packed slate, and finally Wrekin Hill took a chance on “The End of Love” for which they now hold North American rights.

Read the entire article and see the box office grosses.

IndieGoGo raises $15M from Khosla Ventures, doesn’t use Kickstarter to get it

IndieGogo has some hopeful investors in its corner, which could mean the crowd-funding platform is developing a competitive edge in its battle with Kickstarter. The IndieGogo vs. Kickstarter question is already interesting. Most filmmakers (or other campaigners) realize that IndieGogo allows them to keep whatever money they raise, unlike Kickstarter which lets no money exchange hands if the filmmaker falls short of his goal. Still, Kickstarter is the more popular platform, both in terms of projects hosted and money pledged. People are obviously spurred by the all-or-nothing mentality--spurred to donate and to promote. So, what will be IndieGogo's $15 million response?

Who knows. But I am interested by one function IndieGogo has already unveiled--their new proprietary algorithm that promotes projects based on a number of inputs having to do with their popularity and engagement (of creator and fans). People like to talk about the "democratizing" power of the internets, but it seems obvious that politics are often as much at play on platforms for online funding and distribution as at film festivals. IndieGogo's algorithm provides for some legit democratization. I'm excited to see whether they move further in this direction, though also weary of the caliber of projects given their current wholesale dearth of curation.

Article here.

Creative Commons: a shared culture

When uploading a video to Vimeo, we are offered the option to protect it under a Creative Commons license. The same happens with Flickr, Picasa or even Youtube. Not so long ago, all creative content was automatically protected by full copyright, but now, thanks to the licenses provided by Creative Commons, more artists are shifting from the "All Rights Reserved" to a very different formula: "Some Rights Reserved". Why would anyone want to unlock the rigid protection of their creative work and open it up to the public? Well, here's part of the answer: to build a shared culture.

One of Creative Commons's areas of interest is the relationship between

"open licenses" and filmmaking

, and many of the ideas and concepts that appear in this debate are very similar to the ones that structure

CRI's mission

:

Simply put, Creative Commons licenses allow the shift from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved,” enabling you to share your work under terms of your own choosing. This gives you control over distribution, and the non-exclusivity of the licenses means you can retain all commercial rights if desired. [..] That's it. These Creative Commons conditions provide a simple and easy way to mitigate the hassle of sharing a film online and encouraging dialog around a film's release.

Can Creative Commons licenses play an important role in the future paradigm of movie making? Maybe, if the traditional model opened up to a more reticular, diverse and conversational system that explored new strategies to create, distribute and share cultural products.

Producers of 'Tree of Life,' 'Blue Valentine,' 'Paradise Lost' Share Insights on How to Get Your Movie Made

In a session at the PGA's annual Produced by Conference SnagFilms CEO Rick Allen put a great group together to discuss the new ways films are being funded (ahem, Kickstarter) and distributed (take your pick). My favorite excerpt below:

Eventually, the conversation shifted toward non-traditional methods of distribution in an expanding digital environment. Echoing sentiments expressed at the conference by "Dark Knight" director Christopher Nolan earlier in the day, the panelists noted that the theatrical experience continues to wane in the face of increased availability of high-tech home theater systems. And Green spoke about how Malick's “The Tree of Life” crested on the first wave of Tugg, the online service that allows communities to fund and request screenings in their local theaters.

The upshot of all the new avenues for distribution, according to Howell, is that the longer the film stays in the public consciousness, the longer a producer’s role extends. “A producer works on a film like this for a long period of time with no money, working 24 hours a day,” she said. “You have to be committed to giving up that time – a year to a year and a half of your life – to making it.”

Full article from INDIEWIRE here.

Failure - For The Win - 2012 Vimeo Film Festival Conversations

On Friday June 8th I had the pleasure of attending a conversation between Ted Hope (Producer/Partner/Founder, Double Hope Films) and Eddie Burns (Writer/Director/Actor) during the 2012 Vimeo Film Festival where they discussed how hugely important failure was in the creative process. They discussed the importance of embracing failure in creative work, with postcards from their own personal dark days—jobs that went wrong, ideas that fizzled out, expectations decidedly unexceeded—and exploring how failing miserably is crucial to artistic achievement (and even finding happiness).

For all accounts it was inspiring to hear two very successful filmmakers talk about their failures. Each told stories of projects went wrong, movies they thought would never see the light of day and the paralyzing effect of failure and how they overcame it.

Eddie talked about how the success of THE BROTHERS MCMULLEN (his first feature) and then SHE'S THE ONE (his second) gave him a sense of confidence that left him paralyzed after his third movie NO LOOKING BACK flopped. It paralyzed his writing for 3 years. He thought he needed to write a hit based on Hollywood standards. Eddie ultimately realized that telling personal stories and spending those "12 days on set" was what really brought him joy. He found happiness and went back to telling the small personal stories that got him the success in the first place.

Ted talked about the importance of remain humble no matter how successful you are. He told stories of placing high expectations on his work after his previous successes and the feelings of failure that consumed him when he did not live up to those expectations.

Eddie's advice: Do what you do because you love it.  Keep creating. He spoke of the advice someone once gave him in regards to not letting negative reviews stunt your creative work. It's like when you break up with someone. If you fall for someone else you don't care what your ex is doing... but if you are single and you find out that your ex is with someone else... there's a problem. You have to finish a project and then start the next one and fall in love with it. If the reviews don't go your way it won't be so devastating because you are already working on something else that brings you joy.

Ted's advice was to remain prolific. Don't just think about the project you are creating.. think about how you are going to sustain the process of creating. With over 70 feature films produced, Ted has lived by his advice and found a way to keep creating.

I found this overall to be very inspiring, reminding me that I need to continue to press through my failures and use them For The Win.