Data and Metrics in Film

Hollywood is historically risk-averse; marketing-wise it will always want to use what has been shown to work before, even if it might not be the right fit for a certain film. They would rather attempt a tried-and-true set of tricks than take the time to do some research & development (like the Obama campaign) and get the numbers right. What if independent filmmakers used the same data collection and social media tools that have been proven to work for political campaigns? Would this help filmmakers engage their audiences the same way Votebuilder and My.BO helped the Obama campaign communicate with volunteers and voters – and without the bottom line costs of a major Hollywood marketing campaign? It is well known that the Obama machine was entirely built from data. In the BuzzFeed article “Messina: Obama Won On The Small Stuff,” Messina points out that, "Politics too much is about analogies and not about whether or not things work…You have to test every single thing, to challenge every assumption, and to make sure that everything we do is provable." The Obama campaign had an intricate data collection process that occurred both online and offline. Data was collected online everytime a new volunteer pledge their support on the website, through My.BO or gave a donation from an email blast.  Organizers and volunteers also used a database called Votebuilder to collect data about supporters and undecided voters offline through canvassing and phone calls. This cycle of online and offline data collection played a key role in helping the Obama campaign adapt its strategy to the always shifting political climate. The more you know about who you are reaching, how you are reaching them and why they are interested the more you can figure out what outreach methods are working.  Also, using offline canvassing and phone call methods to follow up with supporters who showed interest online added a personal touch that motivated many supporters to do more than just pledge to vote or donate money.

Could filmmakers engage more effectively with their audiences by using a data and metrics system similar to the Obama campaign? In the article, “Why we should build our own nations,” Ben Kempas observes, “It was during last year's election campaign of the pro-independence Scottish National Party that I first came across powerful software called NationBuilder, geared towards political use but flexible enough to be used for all sorts of campaigns, including outreach to those niche audiences of documentary films.” NationBuilder provides nonprofit, government and political organizations tools to create volunteer sign up pages and online feedback forms, similar to the U.S. digital agency Blue State Digital (used by the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012.) As Kempas points out, filmmakers could also use these tools to interact and collect data from their fans. Even before a film is completed, filmmakers could engage with fans to grow their audience and gain insight into what methods would help distribute their film. Similar to the Obama campaign, filmmakers would then be able to shift resources and change their outreach strategy to best distribute their film.

However, the Obama campaign was able to collect its data through a massive team of organizers and volunteers that were doing non-stop voter contact -- to find out who in the voting populace (what places, and what demographics) were swaying their way, and to use their resources accordingly. These organizers and volunteers were able to be marshalled because they recognized and were energized by the urgency of electing the next president. In contrast, the cycle for a film’s distribution is often uncertain, much less nationally urgent, and, with independent films, certainly lacks the hefty "war chest" of resources that the campaign had. This leads us to ask, what can independent filmmakers do that is the equivalent of a voter contact program, to gage what kind of support it has amongst various communities of people? And when to start this: pre-production, production or after the film is made? What strategies could filmmakers use to keep their audience engaged before their film is completed? Does a film need to have a distribution plan before production, or like Four Eyed Monsters, can the filmmakers benefit from clever improvisation & properly pivot their campaign when the film’s process takes them in unexpected directions?

-Josh, Michael and Carl

Four Eyed Monsters- What didn't work

What Does not Work Although the majority of the Four Eyed Monsters’ profit came from online sales, its theater run played a critical role in fueling its online support. Other websites like “Prescreen” have tried to emulate the Four Eyed Monsters model but have only focused on online outreach and sales. In the blog TechCrunch, Leena Rao explains Prescreen’s distribution model, “Prescreen offers users the ability to subscribe to a daily email alert, which will inform them of one Indie film per day. The user can then visit Prescreen to view trailers for free and if interested, can rent movies to stream on demand for up to 60 days.” However, prescreen was recently shut done since it was unable to attract enough subscribers.

Mass emails and trailers are simply not enough to effectively grow an online audience that will purchase the film. Prescreen did not have enough of an “active” campaign that utilized both offline and online organizing tolls like Four Eye Monsters.  See our post on "Offline vs. Online Organizing" here.

Ideas for Improvement

What if the Four Eyed Monsters’ “tipping point” distribution model could be applied to other independent films? If enough people purchase a ticket to see an independent film in their city, the film is screened in theaters. The distributor can ensure people will see the film, and the filmmaker gains an exponential amount of publicity for their film that leads to future DVD and merchandise sales.

The Obama campaign was fortunate enough to have its own database called Votebuilder, which contained massive amounts of information about supporters and voters to determine which regions in battleground states had enough support for a field office. Filmmakers on the otherhand would have to create their own metrics system to determine which cities have enough support to screen their film. However, the makers of Four Eyed Monsters have proven that by complementing online data with offline theater screenings, it can be done.

The “trapdoor” theory also played a critical role in Four Eyed Monsters late blooming success. The "trapdoor" theory is based on the idea that you need to get each person in the organization motivated to their furthest level of involvement. For example, the Obama campaign used the trapdoor theory in the following way. Someone starts off as a voter, picks up a yard sign, signs up to support Obama online, is contacted by the campaign to volunteer, becomes a super volunteer, then may even work on staff. Four Eyed Monsters applied the trapdoor theory to get their fans to opt in to the film after they failed to get it distributed. You like the webseries? Opt-in to see the film in your area. You like the film? Donate to get us out of debt. This step by step process is critical for building a relationship with your audience so they get more and more invested in supporting the film.

Four Eyed Monsters also utilized the "collective buying power" theory that websites like Groupon use to offer consumer deals on products. The "collective buying power" theory focuses on selling products and services at a discounted price if a minimum number of consumers are willing to buy the same item. Four Eyed Monsters used collective buying power to convince movie theaters it was in their economic interest to distribute their film.

This leads us to ask, can the Four Eyed Monsters’ distribution model combined with the "collective buying power" theory help distribute a slate of independent films in movie theaters?

-Josh, Michael and Carl