The Snowflake Model

In the 2008 and 2012 elections, the “Snowflake Model" was used by the Obama campaign to empower millions of volunteers across the country.  In this post we will introduce its basic idea for further contemplation about its relevancy for grassroots film distribution. Before the Obama campaign, many organizations had attempted to create vast volunteer networks through grassroots organizing but fallen short.  In the Huffington Post article, "The New Organizers, What’s really behind Obama’s ground game,” writer Zack Exley explains that, “Other recent attempts have failed because they were either so "top-down" and/or poorly-managed that they choked volunteer leadership and enthusiasm; or because they were so dogmatically fixated on pure peer-to-peer or 'bottom-up"'organizing that they rejected basic management, accountability and planning.”

In contrast to other grassroots campaigns, the Obama "Snowflake Model" offered an unprecedented amount of responsibility and ownership to volunteers, which in turn motivated supporters to reach their furthest level of involvement on the campaign.

Below is a flowchart that illustrates the Obama neighborhood team model, which is built out of the Snowflake Model.

"The Legacy Project," which was conducted by the Obama campaign in order to analyze its best practices from the 2012 election, defines the volunteer roles that consist in each snowflake.

“Relationships among team members held the snowflake together and ensured the team was communicating frequently and working toward common goals…In the center of the team snowflake was the Field Organizer, who managed multiple Neighborhood Team Leaders. In addition to the NTL, each team ideally consisted of at least three Core Team Members, or CTMs: a Phonebank Captain, a Canvass Captain, and a Data Captain. Many teams had at least one other state or turf-specific CTM, such as Voter Registration Captain, Digital Captain, Youth Captain or Faith Captain.”

Leadership titles like Neighborhood Team Leader, Canvass Captain and Phonebank Captain etc, helped delegate responsibility among volunteers.  The "Snowflake Model" also encouraged supporters to become invested by offering more responsibility and access to volunteers who demonstrated they were committed.  For example, someone could start off just as a voter, sign up online, volunteer, become a Neighborhood Team Leader and then work as a staff member on the campaign.  This created a sense of ownership and trust that cultivated thousands of neighborhood teams across the country that canvassed undecided voters, registered voters and ran its massive voter turnout operation on Election Day.

This causes us to wonder if the "Snowflake Model" can also be used to channel the enthusiasm of movie fans towards distributing film. What is the equivalent of a voter in the film world? The equivalent of a volunteer? Neighborhood Team Leader? Do these positions exist in the film distribution already, in different forms? If not, could they be created?

Throughout the year we will explore ways the Obama Snowflake Model can be applied to film as well.

-Josh, Michael, and Carl

Online Vs. Offline Organizing

What is the difference between Online vs. Offline Organizing? Online organizing uses the web to motivate people to get involved in a campaign, whether it is through email blasts, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or an interactive website with a blog that features. These serve as tools to focus on a certain action item, or to make a certain “ask” of the supporters. In contrast, offline organizing focuses on motivating people to get involved through human interactions that take place outside of the web, i.e. one-on-one meetings, canvassing, phone calls etc. From our background working on the Obama campaign, we saw firsthand how both offline and online organizing methods worked best when they complemented each other. Filmmakers and producers however rarely consider offline organizing tools when talking about grassroots film distribution. In the article “Independent Film Distribution IQ,” Angelo Bell discusses the importance of developing a niche audience; however he focuses mainly on using online, instead of offline organizing tools. Angelo advises independent filmmakers to “develop and cultivate our fans and audience relationships through rich teaser content on mediums such as YouTube and Facebook.” Although online teasers may be helpful for promoting a film, their impact could increase exponentially if used properly through relationships fostered in person (See our previous post in which we mention the misguided tendency to use the term “grassroots” as a euphemism for merely any action taken through Facebook or Twitter – mediums that are par for the course for any distributed product these days).

In contrast to Bell, Bajir Cannon’s dissertation “The United States of Unscreened Cinema,” suggests that filmmakers using offline organizing tools are able to significantly increase their online audience. One of the filmmakers Cannon interviewed was Tom Quinn who made a film that is set during the Mummers’ Day Parade in Philadelphia. Quinn recalls that to distribute his film he “went around to a good chunk of the Mummers clubs, and talked one-on-one with them about how we were going to donate part of the proceeds back to the parade, and the Mummers organization got behind the film doing press as well, which was huge. I think our Facebook fans went from 200 people to 2,300 people in one week.” The irony here is interesting: offline organizing led to a rise in online metrics. But we can see this as a success because we know that that increase in “likes” (a metric that by itself one should be wary of) reflects a community that was actively engaged in a deeper way. They felt the personal touch of the campaign, and “liking” the film on Facebook is just one reflection of that.

Similarly, the Obama campaign deployed thousands of field organizers to meet one-on-one with local supporters to connect their interests in the community towards promoting the message of the campaign. The personal contact of one-on-one meetings helped give a face to the Obama campaign, motivating people to sign up online and get involved further. The new media director of the Obama campaign, Joe Rospars, explains “The relationship that Obama built with individual supporters and between them was the unique part. Our tools were sort of the glue for the relationships, but if you’re not running a campaign where people understand that those relationships are central to winning, they don’t care about tools on your website.” Joe is not suggesting online organizing is not effective, but instead highlighting how offline organizing plays a critical role in making the online components of the campaign more relevant to the public and personal. Although the offline organizing techniques for film will obviously differ greatly from the standard canvassing and calling done by political campaigns, filmmakers like Quinn are proving that the combination of offline and online organizing methods are very effective for distributing film. The leads us to ask, what specific combination of offline and online organizing techniques are most effective for distributing film?

-Josh, Michael, and Carl

Indies Grab the Controls at a Game Conference

A great piece by Chris Suellentrop diving into the rise of the indie game developer at the Games Developers Conference:

“There’s always been cool, experimental stuff going on in the indie space, but it’s broadened its reach,” said Steve Gaynor, a co-founder of the Fullbright Company, a studio that consists of four people in a house in Portland, Ore. “It’s become a lot more viable, business-wise, to be an indie.” (The Fullbright Company’s forthcoming game Gone Homewas nominated for excellence in narrative at the independent awards.)

I didn't have a chance to check-out Gone Home, but I can say from speaking to a lot of developers there is a push toward a better understanding of narrative and emotional through-line in much of their work.  Of particular interest to independent filmmakers are the financial models that game developers are using to create and distribute their work:

Because of digital distribution, game designers no longer need to have contracts with publishers — which might once have secured them vital shelf space at Walmart — to succeed financially, Mr. Gaynor said. Beyond money to pay for licensed music and some voice acting, Gone Home’s budget basically pays for food and rent and living expenses for four people. “Our burn rate is really low,” he said.

Introduction: Our Background

At its core, our desire to explore this area of research comes not from our experience as film producers, but from the time we have spent in political campaigns and specifically in our time working for the Barack Obama presidential campaigns of both 2008 and 2012. In fact, ever since graduating from college, both Josh and Michael have oscillated between endeavors in the political realm and producing work in the independent film world. Before our roles as producer and executive producer on Court 13’s short film “Glory at Sea,” respectively, Josh worked in Michigan on a Senate campaign, while Michael worked at the think tank Center for American Progress in Washington D.C. After the short film had its festival run, we both were brought into the fold of the Obama for America apparatus, which at the time was working with grassroots ideas in new, pioneering ways. We both worked as New Media Directors—each in separate swing states—and were asked to return as Digital Program Managers at the national headquarters of the launch of the 2012 re-election campaign. (Between the campaigns we developed and produced “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” as well as worked our own separate film projects). We each have experience in the field organizing aspects of political campaigns, which plays into our prior knowledge of how these methods and structures work. None of this is to imply that politics and film are one in the same as they differ greatly, and a political campaign can and should have a very different audience than a film outreach program; nonetheless, there is much to be taken from and learned from the expertise of these movements in reaching people and generating excitement and advocacy. And more than anything, we would like to explore the relationship between what works in political campaigns and what can work in film campaigns. However, as producers, we have had experience that has led us to want to explore this topic as well. During our time on films, we have come to appreciate that the same skill set that is required to mobilize enthusiastic voters into becoming volunteers or taking action offline or online is very much at work as a producer. Though the focus of our exploration will be on distribution, consider some parallels at play in the stages of a film’s life that come before its release. For example, though the pre-production and production of Benh Zeitlin’s "Glory at Sea" (on which we served as producer and executive producer, respectively) was entirely unorganized, unstructured, and extremely chaotic, there was definite energy and commitment amongst the crew that got the whole project eventually done – it was the kind of personal emotional investment you can find on the best kinds of grassroots campaigns. However, while on Glory this enthusiasm did not have a real structure in which to operate, on "Beasts of the Southern Wild" we were able to formalize an operation that would best fit for it. During development, before we logistically or financially able to staff up our crew, we mobilized would-be crew members around the Herculean task of finding our young star – more than ten different eventual crew members auditioned almost 4000 young girls all across the state. Similarly, we set up pre-production such that the crew would all be living together, on location along the bayous, with a home base at our headquarters that was social as much as professional. This created a community feeling that was key to our success on the film; everyone became familiar and friendly with each other through the task of building what our movie needed. Finally, the structure of various departments was set up so as to allow room for and encourage creative people who wanted to be working on the film to come down and do it. The production had the feel of a summer camp, where we were all committed to the monumental endeavor of pulling the film off, and each crew member was there because they wanted to be there. It was not a job; it was a community project. (More on Beasts in future posts).

So too are all grassroots campaigns community projects – even political campaigns. It takes a well-run structure to properly organize the enthusiasm of many around a common goal, and campaigns tend to be more structured with this in mind than film productions and distribution operations. We are interested in taking this parallel further, by exploring what other of these campaign methodologies we can put into place in the “community project” of putting out an independent film.

-Michael and Josh

Making Movies in France - The American Way

Melanie_Small

Grad Film Alum Melanie Delloye’s thesis film Anna and Jerome, starring Élodie Bouchez, is a French road movie about a mother who doesn't have custody of her six-year-old son and decides to run off with him. Shot in Normandy, and taking full advantage of the geography of the province, this film eschewed traditional financing through France’s national and region­al film agencies. Instead, Melanie made use of a new feature of the French landscape – Crowdsourcing.

Melanie says: “We applied to a bunch of the regional grants, but we were told that in order to do it right we would have to wait a year to make sure that we met all the guichets [benchmarks]. We didn’t want to lose momentum so we decided to go ahead and make the film ‘the American Way.’”

Melanie and her producer Robin Robles raised funds through the crowdsourcing site Ulule, which accepts money in multiple currencies from inside and outside of France. Like Kickstarter, Ulule facilitates funding for a variety of projects (those currently featured on the site include film, photo, and music projects, and even an agricultural start-up).

According to Melanie: “It [crowdsourcing] is very new in France and a lot of people don’t really under­stand what it is. There isn’t even really a French word for it – we just say ‘crowdsourcing.’” To date just under 1,900 projects have been funded through Ulule – compared with over 38,000 funded on Kickstarter. And the goal of 14,000 Euros (about US $18,000) for Anna and Jerome was one of the larger amounts raised on the site – at least at the time.

The novelty of crowdsourcing in France had some benefits. Ulule was fully behind the project and fea­tured it in a number of ways (including a blog about Melanie as Ululer of the Week). Anna and Jerome also received a small amount of funding and other support from Daily Motion (the French equivalent of YouTube).

Melanie and Robin finally did get word from one of the regional film funds that they’d received a grant – but it came six months after Anna and Jerome was finished! (Most such grants require the production to take place within the specific region, province, or municipality, so it was moot.)

Productions that fall under  the guidelines of the Centre National du Cinéma et de l'Image Animée ( the 'CNC' - France's national film agency) also come with other rules, including minimum labor and benefit payments. Making Anna and Jerome outside the con­fines of that system allowed the production to function strictly as a student film, which gave more flexibility (Producer Robin Robles is a recent graduate of La FEMIS, the French state film school). So for a number of reasons, the decision to make the film ‘à l’américaine’ seems to have been a good choice.

Still, Melanie is not forsaking traditional French fund­ing methods. She is developing a feature film set in Colombia, for which she plans to find production financing within Colombia and also seek French co-production funds.

In future blogs I will discuss the Colombian film industry's new incentives system and other productions in development to be shot in that country.

Introduction, Context and Goals

It is our intention to spend our year with a CRI fellowship studying and testing methods to combine grassroots political organizing techniques with film distribution. And here’s why. Most independent films are given a narrow one-way avenue towards finding their audience. So many times, a film over which a group of people has slaved for years, is pushed through the film festival circuit, only to come out with no distribution deal, no path to a bigger audience, and no way to recoup costs. These films may receive praise at a handful of venues, they may get glowing reviews, but they’re still relegated to an extremely limited audience, rarely even given the opportunity to see if they could play to a more diverse audience. We intend to explore a variety of grassroots tools and methods to explore how this audience wall can be pushed, if not even completely broken. First, it’s essential to establish what we mean by a “grassroots” organization before we talk about how it could be used in film (we’ll be revisiting this definition throughout our findings). No matter what its strict definition, the thoroughness of a grassroots operation depends on how each entity or person involved is respected, empowered, included, and in turn, takes ownership of their part in expanding the movement. The motivation derives from the sense of importance, urgency, and necessity felt within personally, rather than from top-down leadership that uses a financial incentive for those “below” them in the hierarchy. The organization subverts any standard corporate structure of power; no one dictates the specifics of what is done at every level, and everyone owns and determines what their responsibility is. How could this translate to independent film distribution? In short, it’s worth considering whether independent film fails to find its audience because it relies on a system that was developed for only certain types of films and was generally developed in a different financial and technological atmosphere. Essentially, we are interested in figuring out how to mobilize an audience through grassroots methods such that a film’s reception is not solely dictated or confined by gatekeepers such as film festivals, traditional venues (“arthouses” or otherwise), film reviewers and advertising. The goal of a grassroots operation with a film should be to use and facilitate the enthusiasm and advocacy of an already existing audience so that their support expands outwards, to then reach new audiences that may not normally be inclined to see independent film – but who are actually a good audience for that film.

The type of operation we are exploring should not only be a means to getting more humans in seats, but also a way to have a more meaningful relationship between the film/filmmaker and audience member. Grassroots models depend on enthusiasm and a shared feeling that this “thing” – be it a candidate or a film – is important and needs to be shared. Additionally, through outreach efforts, a person seeing a film can feel like they are closer to a filmmaker and be part of the film team much more than they would had they just seen a movie because of a trailer or New York Times review. Therefore, in not just one way, grassroots distribution also has the potential to drastically alter the relationship between audience and film. The audience is empowered to become part of the film, which does no less than escalate them beyond their status as merely the audience. Essentially, the audience, instead of being targeted solely as a “consumer” that purchases the film as a “product,” becomes part of the “project” (or, campaign) of the film. They are not only consumers of the film, but also potential advocates of it. There is not just creation and reception; a film’s exhibition and viewers become an essential part of its life instead of the end of its life, and therefore extend its life.

The attribution of the term “grassroots” to independent film distribution is not new, but we believe the tools, strategies, and processes we are interested in exploring have often not been implemented in the realm of film, and when used at all, tend to be applied towards so called “issue films” and are not known by many other filmmakers who could benefit from them. If done correctly, we wonder if a grassroots operation can increase both the volume of people that experience the film, as well as their variety, thus greatly expanding the scope and reach of the film and increasing the level of enjoyment and engagement an audience has watching the film. This increase in audience could open doors, not only for that specific film, but also for those new audience members to be receptive to whole new categories of film in the future. Our idea is not so much to design a cure-all method for all independent films to follow. It is, in fact, incumbent on any grassroots movement to not be formulaic at heart, as we believe these movements rely on a personal, genuine, and nuanced touch to be effective. But even so, much can be learned from the techniques of one campaign that could translate to the next, and if we were able to create a grassroots toolbox and set of best practices for filmmakers to utilize on their films, we could provide an invaluable resource for the indie world.

-Michael and Josh

Games and Film : Emotional Throughline

One of the hurdles with any filmmaker interested in exploring AAA game narrative is the timing of the release. Experiencing the unveiling of a game narrative in real-time as other players around the world are simultaneously revealing the story is one of the key factors in creating the 'nostalgia'-effect that comes along with discussing great gaming experiences.

Games, because of advancing technology tend to occupy a certain place in time and may in some cases, not be as playable years later.

That said, for anyone interested today might a perfect time to jump on the narrative AAA bandwagon with the release of Bioshock: Infinite hitting store shelves.

Check out this CNN piece on the emotional throughline and how the gameplay is using narrative in a really interesting way.

This is certainly one of the top games being discussed at GDC and the gaming world at large.

In future posts, I'll be providing a primer of games that filmmakers might want to check-out

Narrative and Statistics

Large Animal Games on Narrative & Statistics in ensemble games and storytelling GDC Companion Article on Narrative and Statistics

GDC Narrative Game Summit :: Star Wars + Mario + Mass Effect

my_collage_by_Fuzel

A look at the writing of character ensembles from NY-based Dan Nagler's Large Animal Games and what  goes into the weapons selection system for Zelda above.  No surprise here that basic understanding of archetypes, genre and structure applies to both games and linear film.  The layer of statistics for table-top games and fighting games is a nice twist.

GDC Narrative Game Summit :: Puzzle Dependency Charts, The Wizard of Oz as a Game

my_collage_by_Fuzel

Noah Falstein just wrapped his discussion on Puzzle Dependency Systems at the GDC.

One of the key takeaways worth sharing is this adaptation of the Wizard of Oz's  linear storytelling which breaks down the Wizard of Oz film as if it were being written as a game.

An interesting tool to consider for writers in both mediums.

Game Narrative Summit :: GDC 2013

For anyone in the SF area, I'll be representing the CRI at the inaugural Game Narrative Summit at the 25th Game Developers Conference at the Moscone Center in San Francisco this week. Follow me on twitter  for live updates where we will be discussing case studies on the narrative in AAA, indie, and interactive projects. Topics that I'm looking forward to delving into include:

Narrative in Games - Role, Forms, Problems, and Potential

The Future of Storytelling: How Medium Shapes Story

ZombiU : Creating an Undead Cult

Creating Immersive Narrative Games Without Big Budgets or Resources

I'll be reporting back on the discussions and findings this week on the blog.  Direct message me if you want to meet up in the area.

Kubrick as Chess Hustler, an introduction to the collaboration between storytelling in game design and film

My work at the Cinema Research Institute is focused on storytelling at the intersection of video games and film. Specifically my focus and deep interest is how each craft can inform the other as we enter a world where a tablet or phone has morphed into a mini-multiplex where you can swipe between your choice of entertainment multiple times a day. My work will focus on the practical elements of what designers, directors, programmers, and producers can learn from one another  in an effort to create both new collaborative narratives and advance our understanding of how creators interested in working in both mediums can find a common language.

To kick things off, I wanted to start my blog posts here by sharing a quote from one of the pioneers of modern cinema, Stanley Kubrick whose prophetic visions of the future in Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange and 2001 still resonate today.

"You sit at the board and suddenly your heart leaps. Your hand trembles to pick up the piece and move it. But what chess teaches you is that you must sit there calmly and think about whether it’s really a good idea and whether there are other, better ideas."

Kubrick was not only a visionary storyteller, but it's astounding to see him as one of the first to identify the cross-collaboration possible between game design and film storytelling well before Pong was invented or players immersed themselves in the Mass Effect trilogy.

2001 Chess Scene

While it is widely documented that his nascent photographic eye was developed as a stills photographer for Look Magazine, less reported is that Kubrick was a an amateur chess player and hustled games in Washington Square Park. In fact, as this quote indicates, I would argue that his keen photographic training, paired with his careful understanding of the game of chess might be two of the key factors that would inform the creation of his filmography.

George C. Scott and Kubrick playing chess on the set of Dr. Strangelove

Political Campaigns vs. Film Distribution

To continue our discussion on the relationship between grassroots political campaigns and grassroots film distribution, here is an interesting blog on an independent film called, Grassroots. The blog compares the process of distributing an independent film without major studio support to running a grassroots campaign to elect a political candidate. Similar to a political campaign, the production team tries to form partnerships with organizations that resonate with the social issues in the film. The film Grassroots is about an underdog candidate that runs for city council in Seattle, so outreach was done to colleges to screen the film and talk about the importance of young people running for political office. Although a studio eventually purchased the rights to the film, the distribution run for the film was shorter than expected. Part of the reason could be that vague goals were set for school screenings, social media hits and ticket sales. In contrast, the Obama campaign had a very complicated and precise matrix system put in place to calculate the number of TV ads, doors knocked and calls needed to persuade someone to vote for Obama. The Washington Post article, “Obama’s ‘Moneyball’ campaign,” reveals the depth of data the campaign used to target voters and raise money for the campaign.

This article reveals the data and concrete goals set by the Obama campaign served as a road map to victory for organizers and media teams in all ten of the battleground states. Clear goals gave the campaign direction, helped keep thousands of political operatives and volunteers accountable, and allowed the campaign to shift resources to states that needed help.

This leads to our third question for this blog. Can the intricate matrix system created by the Obama campaign also be applied to grassroots film distribution or is the data needed to do so too abstract?

-Carl, Michael and Josh

‘Veronica Mars’ Phenomenon

In our recent post “What is grassroots?” we began the larger question that we’ll explore throughout the year: “What kind of grassroots methods work for which kinds of films?” In our second post, we will examine the unexpected success of Veronica Mars Kickstarter campaign, which raised close to four million dollars in less than a week. The film does not seem like a normal candidate for grassroots donations since it was on a network television show owned by a major studio.  However, through effective messaging, the filmmakers were able to set a new fundraising record on Kickstarter. Here is a link to the kickstarter page that is still going strong. Rob Thomas, the creator of the show explains in the Kickstarter page that after meeting with Warner Bros, “Their reaction was, ‘If you can show there’s enough fan interest to warrant a movie, we’re on board.’ So this is it. This is our shot. I believe it's the only one we've got.” With this quote, Thomas is turning his struggle with the studio Warner Bros into a grassroots cause that creates a sense of urgency for fans to contribute to the film. We learned in the last blog post about the important role urgency plays in the film distribution campaigns We Were Here vs. Henry’s Crime.

The Obama campaign in 2008 used a similar tactic to fuel its grassroots campaign by building the narrative that he was a party outsider running against the Washington establishment. This gave Obama’s candidacy a higher purpose, particularly among young, anti-establishment voters, that inspired his supporters to not only vote for Obama but also volunteer.

The question deserves to be asked: what is the equivalency between Kickstarter supporters and the supporter of a political campaign, in this instance? Is it a literal equivalence – ie the donor towards the Veronica Mars campaign is the equivalent of a donor to the Obama campaign? Or rather is it that this Kickstarter campaign has created a moment of “opting in” that the studio needed to see in order to know it could move forward with development? The moment of “opting in” is key on political campaigns because in lieu of the actual vote which comes later, it is a vote of support and of commitment, that can be used to extract valuable information from a supporter (email addresss, contact info) that can be capitalized on for later campaign initiatives. Similarly, by “opting in” to the Veronica Mars campaign, supporters’ contact information will be put on a listserv that the producers & Warner Brothers are sure to use to their advantage during distribution.

However, unlike the Veronica Mars Kickstarter page, many Obama supporters volunteered without the promise of receiving a material reward for their work. Instead, the campaign was able to motivate volunteers by giving them an unprecedented amount of access to the goals and campaign strategy, which made volunteers feel like they were playing an integral part in making history. In short, the Obama campaign inspired millions of people to volunteer by giving them a higher purpose that added meaning to their lives and not by offering a material prize. A lot of people wanted health benefits or an end of war in Iraq for example. People felt they would be getting something for their work, even if it was not as tangible as a t-shirt. The “return on investment” for Veronica Mars supporters is the existence of the tangible film itself, which will be given as a reward to those that give a certain amount of money.

This raises a more troubling element to the Kickstarter phenomenon, as far as how it intermingles with studio-backed projects. Are the fans who are opting in right now paying for the ability to pay again to see the film in a theater when it comes out? Or will they be content with the copy delivered to their (physical or digital) doorstep, and thereby the campaign is a way of “pre-selling” the film to its fans (ie using guaranteed distribution to pay for development).

What’s clear is that the Veronica Mars campaign has been successful because, to a certain extent, it was able to turn a potential film into a movement. This leads to our second question for this blog. How do you make your movie a movement, even if it is not about social issues?

-Carl, Michael and Josh

What is grassroots?

What is grassroots? After the success of the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012, the term “grassroots” has become a buzzword in both the political arena and in the realm of film -- both in its production and distribution. But what does the term grassroots really mean? In their article, “’A Tree Falls in the Forest’ and Other Ruminations on Social/Community-based Marketing,” film distributors Orly Ravid and Jeffrey Winter of the Film Collaborative assert that these days “every person with internet is a distributor”; this is undeniably true. But it’s precisely because of that fact that the “grassroots outreach” plan they prescribe to filmmakers feels pretty par for the course. It goes without saying that one would strive to use social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to spread word about a film.

Are these platforms truly “grassroots” tools? In our study, we aim to parse out the current discourse about grassroots distribution to separate the signal from the noise. With our background in electoral politics, we will approach this conversation with particular consideration towards the potential of the methodologies and structures of the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012 when applied towards film distribution. We aim to discover what paths are effective, and for what kind of films.

In that vein, Ravid and Winter’s article becomes more useful as it turns toward a particular case study between two very different films.

The article suggests that films about social issues create a sense of urgency that is crucial for igniting grassroots film distribution campaigns. The article compares two different films to illustrate this point: We Were Here, a documentary about HIV awareness, and a romantic comedy titled Henry’s Crime. Although both films apply similar grassroots methods by reaching out to core constituency groups to help promote the film, We Were Here had a much more successful distribution run. This is because the issue of HIV awareness generates a sense of urgency that motivates supporters and advocacy groups to spread the message of the film. In contrast, even though Henry’s Crime tried similar grassroots tactics like reaching out to the fans of stars in the movie to help promote, there was less urgency surrounding the romantic comedy, and the film flopped.

A number of questions result: could Henry’s Crime have succeeded had different grassroots methods been used for it than were for We Were Here, given that they’re very different films? Can you create urgency around a film that isn’t rooted in issues? This is just the beginning of what’s sure to be a long and interesting conversation. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

--Carl, Michael and Josh

Introduction to Global Film Connect

CRILOGOLRGwht

Global Film Connect is a Cinema Research Institute project that will examine the future of the Co-Production in the independent film landscape.

Beginning with the international NYU film community and ultimately reaching far beyond, this platform will explore dynamic areas of change in cross-border financing, providing a place to amalgamate information and share solutions.

The Global Film portion of the CRI blog will report on topics that are diverse in terms of both region and industry structure, paying specific attention to opportunities for international collaboration at lower budget levels.

Over the next several months, I will be blogging regularly with original content and links to other material. Some topics on the immediate horizon include:

The Paris Project and other French platforms for international investment

Austerity measures - current and impending

South Africa's government fostering local and international talent

Crowdfunding/crowdsourcing in Europe

China in the world

The South American road movie

I'm looking forward to making this a valuable resource for the independent film community.

What's in it For Me?

I recently posted about this article on gift logic (vs free market logic), a social means of relating that governs certain cultures (like the Tiv of West Africa) and makes certain online platforms (like Kickstarter) work. Then someone seriously revamped our CRI website and accidentally killed that post in the process. So I just wanted to re-post the link to this compelling article since the author articulates relevant points about transactions that strengthen relationships, platforms that build communities, and social mechanisms that fund art. My CRI project is ultimately focused on understanding how online tools could support such transactions, platforms and social mechanisms, so I really appreciated this thoughtful perspective. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/magazine/why-would-you-ever-give-money-through-kickstarter.html?pagewanted=all

Community vs. Blob

I've written plenty here about innovative and exciting platforms for independent film distribution and/or discovery (plenty enough to make at least myself and probably you repulsed by the words Innovative, Exciting, Platform, Distribution, And/Or, and/or Discovery). I've also written a lot here about how few of these platforms actually deliver on their promises to connect filmmakers and fans. My CRI project is about this connection, about community--defining it, understanding why it is a critical component of the online ecosystem for filmmakers, and studying the attempts that startups and institutions have made to build and address it. Community is critical because if it isn't there, than it really doesn't matter if your film is. Is a good library enough to draw community? Recognizable and trustworthy curators? Interaction? Involvement? Empowerment? I think it's some kind of combination of all of the above, with an emphasis on everything that came after "good library." Which is not to say that the quality of content doesn't matter in the online ecosystem. Of course it does. And there are enough quality films not getting (or not getting enough out of) traditional, theatrical distribution to populate a robust online ecosystem. Rather, online communities want an ontologically online experience--they want a unique kind of empowering involvement that does not exist in an offline world. And so some excited rambling about two organizations (a bootstrap startup and a leading institute) that are tackling the community question in truly Innovative And/Or Exciting ways:

One of the platforms I've been researching that I think is killing it is Seed&Spark, (whose COO (and my Tisch classmate) Liam Brady is using the platform to seed and spark his film, FOG CITY). Emily Best, founder and CEO of the company, writes that she "founded Seed&Spark to allow indie filmmakers to leverage this WishList crowd-funding method specifically to build and grow their collaboration with their audiences for the entire life-cycle of a film," because "...when you activate the imaginations of your broader community, you set off a chain of actions, reactions and connections the result of which can push the boundaries of your film beyond what you imagined." The "WishList" to which she refers is essentially a wedding registry for an independent film. Best first experimented with the WishList idea for her film LIKE THE WATER:

What we came to call the "WishList" rendered our filmmaking process transparent to our community and sparked their imaginations. They started coming up with ways to get involved we hadn't imagined. They became deeply meaningful collaborators in the film who then lined up – literally – around the block to see the film when it was finished. ... When both you and your supporter can name the material contribution they made to your film, you both understand your supporter’s importance beyond the number of dollars they contributed. And they should feel important because they are.

Best understands that a community needs to be empowered and thus feel important in order to thrive. So many brands spend so many corporate dollars trying to create online communities and make them feel important. But this is a difficult verging on deceptive task since the individuals who comprise these "communities" are ultimately as important as any other individuals from like demographics. For an independent film, however, individual supporters are actually important because they can, as Best points out and as Seed&Spark allows, contribute uniquely to that film's actualization. I have $50 to donate, you have a car to rent cheaply, he has c-stands to lend, etc. It's kind of beautiful how the needs of an independent film and its online community align like this. All independent films depend to some degree on the good will of communities--local communities, friends, family and peers of the filmmaking team, etc. And a community by definition thrives on supporting its members (that's why it's a community and not a nebulous blob of loners). Seed&Park offers online tools to facilitate this good will and thus connect filmmakers and fans in a profound and uniquely online way.

The Sundance Institute has announced that its Artist Services program will expand its suite of digital tools through partnerships with Tugg, Vimeo, Reelhouse, and VHX. These partners join Kickstarter, GoWatchIt, TopSpin Media, as well as the usual retailer suspects. The above hyperlinked IFP release as well as this IndieWire article provide information on these platforms, and I've also written about several of them on this blog. Artist Services is further partnering with other organizations which will select filmmakers to share Artist Services privileges with Sundance alumni. The organizations are: The Bertha Foundation, BRITDOC, Cinereach, Film Independent, the Independent Filmmaker Project and the San Francisco Film Society.

It is clear that the Sundance Institute is committed through Artist Services to exploring the community component of the online independent filmmaking ecosystem. Between their retail partners (iTunes, Hulu, Netflix etc.), and the partner platforms that help filmmakers strategize their direct-to-fan distribution and marketing (TopSpin, VHX, Reelhouse), #AS is providing their filmmakers a pretty robust toolkit for self-distribution. By additionally partnering with platforms like Tugg and Vimeo, #AS is acknowledging that an engaged community is as important as quality marketing or visible shelf-space. Tugg directly involves and thus empowers its community to bring the films they want to see to their local theater. Despite their nascent experiments with monetization, Vimeo is essentially a community of people who make videos and people who watch them. Although YouTube's community is bigger (like hundreds of millions bigger), Vimeo's superior user-interface/experience, profile customization, and opportunities for discovery (staff picks, categories, etc.) make it feel like a prettier, comfier, more tight-knit community. (There are other differences, of course.) However it stacks up against its opponent, Vimeo is indisputably a community, not a tool for direct to fan strategizing. Artist Services does not end its suite of tools at direct to fan strategizing platforms because tools that empower communities are as vital to a film's self-distributed success.

I'd like to believe that we are in fact being wired together, not apart, but I also think that there's space and time for both the movies we watch together in theaters and the ones we watch alone on personal screens (as long as they're at least 13 inches or so). Personal feelings about the anthropological impacts of online connection aside, the independent filmmaking and loving community is very real and very capable of helping each other make and discover movies online. To me, online community means a collection of real individuals that make real things happen via the Internets (online communities fund films; online nebulous blobs produce analytics). To different platforms, community means different things. Some don't need it (Netflix) and others can't live without it (anything I've written about here). I'm interested in online tools that by virtue of being online tools help a widespread group of like-minded people come together and Seed, Spark, Kickstart, Gathr, and Tugg stuff--tools that empower our community.

Sundance Institute and Women in Film Release Unprecedented Study on Women Directors

Melissa Silverstein of IndieWire reported yesterday the findings of a study released at Sundance on the gender disparity in the film industry. Silverstein's bottom line is that "there is some great news... and some really sucky news," but the article deserves to be read in its entirety. This is a pressing issue for emerging filmmakers; take a look.

Netflix Meets Customers More Than Halfway

There's a new kid on the block.  He looks a lot like the other kids but this one's different.  He'll follow you around wherever you want, he'll tell you things the other kids won't, and most importantly, he'll pay attention to you.  He'll listen to what you want, thinks about it carefully, and finds the best ways to make sure you get it. This is what Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos made clear at this year's Television Critics Association (TCA).  Sarandos showed the industry that Netflix is now officially in the TV programming big leagues, rolling out its upcoming slate of shows that includes fresh ideas from Ricky Gervais and David Fincher as well as the much-hyped not-exactly-a-season-4-but-a-return-nonetheless of Arrested Development.  But the bigger message seemed to be that while Netflix's programming may be starting to look more and more like what bigger, more established networks have been producing, Netflix is different.  They're not beholden to advertisers, and they're not interested in publishing ratings for any reason.  How will we know if a Netflix show is a hit?  They answer is actually quite revolutionary-- they don't care if we do.  For them, it is all about creating value for the folks that are there.  Period.

Despite that Direct TV has been doing it for years, Netflix getting a lot of credit for bringing back a busted series. In this case they are bailing the Bluth gang out of forced retirement.  But the bigger PR story here seems to be the binge release strategy whereby all episodes of each season will be made available simultaneously.  What they will be no weekly episode reviews, no pushes to drive unified tune in, no twitter conversations syncing with each episode.  Instead, Netflix is anticipating a burst of attention, followed by a slow, steady cycle of recommendation and discovery that will make the only people that matter--their subscribers--happy for a long time to come... or until the license ends.

I hope it works. This new kid had a rough 2012 but he's still around and I like a lot of his ideas.  And I like how he treats me.