• 

  Getting inspiration from a teen filmmaker, and more news you can use for June

  • Posted on 7th Jun
  • Category: Newsletter

  

   
  

  
  

  How a Teenaged First-Time Director Won Tribeca With His No-Budget Feature

  Philip Youmans, a nineteen year old, wrote, shot and directed Burning Cane, a feature length film, which would go onto win the Founders Prize at Tribeca Film Fest. The idea first came to him as a sixteen year-old in junior-high school. NoFilmSchool has the full story and interview, and this is my pick for inspirational story of the week.

  A few  big take-aways from me -

  1) he had a singular vision and was obsessed - every successful director I know is obsessed and won’t stop until they make their vision a reality. Youmans tells NoFilmSchool: "I've been making short films since I was in eighth grade. They were very bad in the beginning but I kept making more and more. I was getting better, learning about the things that didn't work. I learned through a lot of trial and error and put all of my money into my shorts growing up. That's why I didn't travel that much—I would put all of my money into the shorts. That, and gas for my car." That to me is the single biggest commonality I've found among successful filmmakers - whether you give them ten dollars or ten million dollars, they will spend every last cent of it making films, learning the craft, making mistakes and having break-throughs until they bring their vision to reality. Of course, the trick is marrying this to actual talent, but talent without obsession rarely goes this far.

  2) he told a story that was native to his experience - the guy's a kid, what experience can he bring to film, some would ask? Well, read the interview - he knows his locale and focused on what he knew best. This was a story he could tell because he grew up right in the middle of it.

  3) he had the gumption to reach out for help (to Benh Zeitlin no less) and that alone will help make his career. Sure, he got lucky here too, and actually got a response. But it was having the gumption to try - he didn't have any connections, he reached out via Instagram. Similarly to how Raymond Santana tweeted Ava DuVernay to get her interested in the story of the Central Park Five for When They See Us (which was partly his story), Youmans took a chance and it worked. He also relied on the help of his friends - as he says in the article, only your friends will help you make a low-budget film - "Friends are willing to stick through it with you even when things are incredibly uncertain" and that's true for any film, and any business endeavor.

  Great coverage from NoFilmSchool - and a filmmaker we'll undoubtedly be hearing from again. Reading stories like this one renews my faith in indie film, and I hope it does the same for you.

  WHAT I"M READING: FILM

   

  Quibi: The next Go90, or streaming unicorn? - Quibi is setting out where other streaming platforms have failed: creating a mobile streaming platform. The differences: an executive all star team, backing by major studios, and rising trends in mobile consumption. But at the end of the day, will this only benefit major studios, or will it help Quibi to become a success as well? The debate continues on Digiday, who also report that Quibi has dropped plans for connected-apps, and is sticking with mobile only plans.

  Amazon Brings Shows to Life to Stand Out in the Streaming Space Amazon is using multi media experiences to help promote their shows. Examples include The Garden of Delights, a sensory experience used to promote Good Omes at SXSW, and bringing back Carnegie Deli during the upfronts tp promote Marvelous Ms. Maisel. “

  It's about going beyond the binge," said Callif. "How do you keep the conversation going with fans and get them not only excited and continuing with these properties, but also to hopefully be sharing it with their friends and family to get them engaged?"

  Me: Transmedia storytelling is still at work, just under different names.

  Video streaming apps go local for stories Upcoming Netflix originals such as 'Yeh Ballet' and 'Kaali Khuhi' will be based in small towns in India. With most OTT services needing relevant content to fuel their subscription-based models, “heartland stories” are forming a core content strategy, according to industry experts. In short, you can’t conquer a country without working with local storytellers. People want content that reflects their lives, and Netflix (and other SVODs) will have to invest a lot in local production to keep subscriber growth moving. Let’s just hope they work with some “true indies” along the way.

  Youtube is changing how subscribers counts are displayed, possibly shifting its culture - While it seems like a small change, this could lead to big problems, especially as more attention is being paid to subscriber counts. I’m all for Instagram hiding like counts, so we stop obsessing over esteem, but the video business is a business, it’s not just social, and the last thing the video business needs is less transparency or “rounding errors.”

  Cinelytic in the News – I’ve been following the development of Cinelytic for awhile now (it launched when I was helping run another data project, so we spoke a lot), and it’s up and running now and making some news. Check out this article in the Verge on how Cinelytic’s technology supports the business side of film. And also this interview with Fox Business News, where Cinelytic’s CEO, Tobias Queisser discusses their use of artificial intelligence to shake up the film industry. I think it’s a pretty smart tool for modeling potential film performance, and it’s worth using if you are a brand, platform or producer making a lot of narrative content (it doesn’t work for docs really).

  WHAT I"M READING: BRANDED CONTENT

  AI vs Curation and the Attention Economy-  Joe Marchese is one of the smartest people in the business, and he recently left Fox to work in VC, with a focus on smart start-ups curating the future of media (among other things) He penned a nice article for Redef about the need for better systems for getting people’s attention than the crap AI systems we’ve built, which are focused on maximizing eyeballs cheaply for advertising (he calls it fracking for attention...nice one).  As he says: “In effect, we have abdicated our responsibility for curating what is worthy of a fellow human’s attention to A.I. which, in turn, is optimizing only for immediate engagement and advertising margin.” And he makes a strong case for what’s needed: “However, the brands, retailers, and media companies that understand how to operate in the current Attention Economy will become trusted curators and shape the future of culture and commerce.” (emphasis mine). Read the full piece for what he thinks will work and how he’s working to build that future.

  Film Independent held a Branded Content panel, and the takeaways are worth a read, and the full panel video is at the link. (h/t Sundance Creative Distribution newsletter). I take issue with the title - selling out vs. getting paid what you love to do, which perpetuates this myth that making branded content is somehow just about a paycheck - it can be creative in its own right, but the tips and feeback here are relatively solid.

  How culpable are filmmakers who support frauds/bad companies in ads/branded content? - Hyperallergic has a good little article about Errol Morris’s work for Thernos (and AIG and Nike) and the ethical implications. Few people stop to think about the actual ethical implications (beyond the idea of “selling out,” so this is worth reading and contemplating for anyone thinking about this space.

  BBC StoryWorks boss: Content marketing is advertising Jelana Li, head of BBC Storyworks AUNZ, rejects the idea that content marketing shouldn’t be viewed as advertising, but rather still carries the “function” of advertising,” which is to sell a product” “Consumers are very smart these days, they know when content contains a commercial message and if it’s not labelled as such, they feel betrayed,” Li says. Me: Amen. Part of being “authentic” with storytelling is acknowledging that any brand message is in some manner an advertisement. Even if your true KPI is societal change, or something else, your brand value increases (when this is done well) by the affinity with a good story, and no one is fooled by this. And if they are, they’ll be even more pissed off when they find out the truth. So be up front about it.

  
  NorthFace-Pedia[/caption]

  Why The North Face manipulating Wikipedia confirms our darkest fears of advertising - Another slap your face moment in brand mishaps this past week  - The North Face and its Brazilian agency Leo Burnett Tailor Made boasted about how the brand evaded Wikipedia editors to slyly embed the outdoor apparel giant’s products in high-traffic tourism pages for sites like Peru’s Huayna Picchu, Brazil’s Guarita State Park, and Scotland’s Isle of Skye. Wikipedia immediately called out The North Face in a Twitter thread, accusing the brand of lying about collaborating with the platform. Remember, authenticity is a buzzword for a reason.

  Indigenous Media uses 60 Second Docs to Carve out a niche in the branded content world - Jake Avnett (CEO of Idigenous Media) is able to push strong branded content in a digital medium through film conventions. This is made apparent through the success of 60 second docs. Me: they’ve made 500 documentaries, generating 3.5bn total views and have 7 million followers, showing you can build an audience with great short form, but the key remains a mix of original/nonbranded, branded content and (pretty much) ads - content diversification.

   

  The secret to great branded content? It’s not about the brand : Marketing Interactive lays out how to make great branded content, and guess what, authenticity is part of the key. Among their recommendations:

  • Find authentic stories by engaging local storytellers
  • Scout out your filmmaker through their short films
  • Don’t make your brand the hero, be part of the hero’s journey - me, this one is crucial.
  • Don’t be afraid to go long
  • Think long term
  • Create a content universe - It works better when the brand story is part of a bigger project. All great advice for brand storytellers.

  Future Proof: How much branding can you put in branded content? Podcast: Branded content is absolutely everywhere… but why? What format works best, at each stage of a customer’s journey? How transparent should you be? And how much branding is simply too much? Dr Alex Connock, Associate Fellow at Said Business School and founder of Missile Digital, talks to the Future Proof podcast about his research and industry experience, sharing insights for marketers exploring the brave new world of branded content.

  
  Atlantic/Netflix[/caption]

  For Netflix’s ‘When They See Us,’ Branded Content Becomes a Powerful Educational Tool

  The Atlantic using branded content for social causes through ‘When they See Us’ to inspire empathy and educate audiences about the problems plaguing the US incarceration system. Me: this is a great example of brand collaboration - in this case, two platforms who are also brands, working together to “build a story universe” that could tell more of the story that didn’t fit in the Netflix miniseries.

  WHAT I"M READING: SOCIAL MEDIA

  The Real Difference Between Creators and Influencers - very interesting how things change with time, and from platform to platform. Most of the difference is YouTube (creators) vs. other platforms (influencers), but it’s also about how transactional the relationship is, etc.

  Unlocking TikTok: how marketers are experimenting with the video app- although Tik Tok is still new and less-inhibited by brands and larger corporations, marketers are trying to find their way in. But find it they will, as they’re desperate for your attention and if you are a day younger than me, that’s the main place you visit now.

  Influencers you don't follow will soon be in your Instagram feed - trying to avoid that one annoying influencer? Well too bad. Brands are now investing money into advertising that will allow influencer ads to show up in your feed. Gross, but also to be expected.

  WHAT I"M READING: MUSIC/PODCASTS

  The podcast industry expected to create $1 billion in annual revenue by 2021 - with more startups investing in the podcast industry, advertisers are investing more money. The seemingly insatiable appetite for more podcasts can’t last forever – like video, there’s only so much we can consumer, but for now, it’s a good time to be a creator.

  iTunes' Death Is All About How We Listen To Music Today - and the way we listen to music is through streaming. Begs the question - now what happens to all the music we’ve digitally purchased. Glad my faves are all on Vinyl.

• 

  The End of the 'Net as We Know It, and other cheery news for May 21st

  • Posted on 21st May
  • Category: Newsletter

  THE END OF THE NET AS WE KNOW IT

  

  
  

  A recurrent theme I keep seeing as a subtext of many of the articles I write and link to here has been the ongoing professionalization of the internet and how that is impacting culture. Why I never thought of calling it what it is – gentrification – boggles my mind, but luckily this week Jessa Lingel did just that in a great article for Culture Digitally, called… The Gentrification of the Internet. (h/t to ReDef)

  And she’s right. Just like our cities, the Internet is getting gentrified in the service of big business, advertising, commerce and the safety these entities need. These changes are subtle and have been taking place over time, but are fundamentally changing the nature of the Net. As she says:

  In the early days, the Web was driven by experiments in technology, DIY community building and curiosity around connecting with strangers from across the world. The Web we have now is guided by different principles, like business models that rely on a constant transfer of data from people to marketers, social norms of consumption and self-promotion, and black boxing the algorithms that structure the platforms we use. The internet is increasingly making us more isolated, less democratic, and beholden to major corporations and their shareholders. In other words, the internet is increasingly gentrified.

  She goes on to point out three critical similarities between urban and internet gentrification: Isolation, where we increasingly live in less diverse bubbles; Increasing Costs, where services get more expensive (urban) or where you get “out-spent and out-coded” by Facebook, etc.; and Uneven Commercialization, where local businesses are pushed aside, or earlier websites (Craigslist) get cast as outdated and uncool.

  Meanwhile, over at Medium, Yancey Strickler (co-founder of Kickstarter) wrote a great piece called The Dark Forest Theory of the Internet, where he applies author Liu Cixin’s dark forest theory of the universe from his sci-fi trilogy The Three Body Problem to today’s internet.

  Briefly, the idea of the dark forest is that the Universe is not unlike a dark forest – it seems quiet, dark and inactive, but there’s a lot of hidden animal activity going on, and there might also be a lot of activity going on in the Universe, but we can’t see or hear it. As Yancey says, “If it’s a dark forest, then only Earth is foolish enough to ping the heavens and announce its presence. The rest of the universe already knows the real reason why the forest stays dark. It’s only a matter of time before the Earth learns as well.

  This is also what the internet is becoming: a dark forest.”

  His thesis is that as we get sick of poor internet behavior, people are increasingly turning to dark forests online –“newsletters and podcasts…Slack channels, private Instagrams, invite-only message boards, text groups, Snapchat, WeChat, and on and on. This is where Facebook is pivoting with Groups (and trying to redefine what the word “privacy” means in the process).”It’s something he acknowledges he’s been doing more of, and it applies to me as well – I’ve turned to writing this newsletter instead of posting/reading Facebook, and I’ve been moving to more private forms of communication. But the problem with this is that as people like us “abandon” these spaces, we diminish our own influence on the larger world. Or as he says, “If the dark forest isn’t dangerous already, these departures might ensure it will be.”

  It has me thinking a lot about just how momentous this moment is for the future of the Internet. People are moving into walled-gardens (Facebook, private channels); politicians are destroying net neutrality principles, and indeed the Net is bifurcating into at least three Nets (Our’s, China’s, Europe’s); we see calls for censorship and making the Net “safer” for kids and advertisers; and as more money piles into online content, the space for independent voices (be they news, or films, or music, or opinion, or…) shrinks and becomes harder to find.

  We’ve not only broken the Internet to make a better Mall, a better TV and a worse cab, but we’ve possibly come near the end of the time period when we can do much about it. Nathaniel Rich’s gigantic article for the NYT last year (and now a book) Losing Earth: the Decade we Almost Stopped Climate Change, pointed out that from 1979-1989, we could see what was going wrong with global warming and had a chance to do something different, but for various reasons (money, politics, lack of will), we lost the chance. I fear we’re going through a similar decade as it applies to the Net now, and the implications for society overlap with and are not dissimilar from those when that battle was lost.

  What to do? Well, Lingel argues we need to do three things: take control of the algorithm; diversify what you see/visit; and control the politics – by paying attention to the politicians (and lobbyists) and corporations trying to change the Net and make our voices heard. I’m not sure that’s enough, and that it’s not too late, but the Optimist in me holds out a little hope that we can use the Internet to come together to fight these changes and reassert a little more of that original DIY ethos. Let’s hope that’s the case.

  WHAT I’M READING: FILM

  Disney says its more than $400 million Vice investment is now worthless. Saw that one coming, but it amazes me that some people are still giving these clowns money. It. never. Worked. It was a media Ponzi-scheme all along, and only the old media guard fell for it.

  Check out this fun interview with Werner Herzog - where he discusses everything from catching trout with your bare hands to how to pick a lock. Good stuff.

  WHAT I’M READING: BRANDED CONTENT

  Why Brand Purpose marketing isn’t working with young people - Guess why? Because most brands don’t have a purpose and think they can fake one. You can’t. But when you are genuine, the audience knows it and responds in kind.

  Will Streaming Platforms usher in a golden age of Branded Content - I’ve been saying this for years now, and finally people are picking up on the fact that brands are making longer form and episodic content to get past the firewall and onto SVOD. We’ll also see it increase as Netflix realizes they need another revenue stream.

  Walmart is Streaming Shoppable Shows, and that could change shopping - Walmart is using streaming content to help facilitate consumers buying products. I don’t think this is the best use of branded content, but it will surely work for fashion and certain other brands, and it is (unfortunately) the future.

  Forbes is making 40% of its revenue from branded content - according to Digiday - and part of the reason for that is more cross-platform thinking as exemplified by the ties between their research, events and content divisions. More on Forbes below, but combining services seems like a smart strategy in this space.

  WHAT I’M READING: GAMING; VR/AR; SOCIAL MEDIA

  

  How Jordan Freeman and Zoom are using Cross-media approaches and a stellar team to make gaming the new art form. A great read in Forbes on someone doing it right. Freeman has built a bit of a creative dream team (smart step one) and is focused on building story worlds, and making something more than the “usual” in the gaming world. It has a lot of potential. From the article, Zoom’s approach “could truly help games become more recognized as works of art: a seamless blend of elements we appreciate as artistic, but presented in a cross-media  package that combines imagination with interactivity, founded on

  real creativity.”

  Driving marketing in the 21st century with VR and AR - More on how the future of advertising is at least partly being realized  through VR/AR.

  How video games can address climate change - Finally, some folks are using active/interactive media that  people actually participate in to address climate change (games, that is). It’s about time, and will likely have far more influence than all these scary climate films we’ve been making. Kudos.

  TikTok has Created a Whole New Class of Influencer - As the article says: “There might not be much money – but, right now, there is very little artifice as a result.” and that’s why TikTok works for so many people - the lack of artifice, which is reminiscent of early web video. It will be about a year before it gets overrun with “professionalized” content, but it’s great for now.

  VACATION -

  Note that I am taking a break til after June 3rd and the newsletter will be on temporary hiatus. More in June.

• Arts/Film Ethics, the State of AI & Film, the Doc Market and more news

  • Posted on 5th May
  • Category: Newsletter

  

  Ethics and the arts: Holland Carter (in the NYT) has a good run down of the ethical issues facing the arts world now, from stolen antiquities to whether you accept money from pill pushers or arms dealers when you run a museum. It’s worth a read to get the full scope of the argument, which comes down to we need more protests and thought about these issues.

  It shouldn’t be much of a conundrum to just do the right thing. But I guess those ethics get harder when running a museum is not unlike firing up a vacuum cleaner in search of dollars – you tend to suck in a lot of dirt.

  Speaking of vacuum cleaners sucking up dollars, there’s Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and they have their own ethical issues. Just this week, Indiewire ran an article about whether or not Hollywood will leave Georgia now that they’re getting closer to banishing abortion. The answer: of course not. Hollywood only takes convenient, cost-neutral stands. The film world is saving too much money to take a stand in Georgia. We can call it a complex issue, or just admit this truth.

  Similarly, no one cares about the killing of Jamal Khashoggi when they take Saudi Arabian investment money, which AMC is taking, along with many others in Hollywood and Silicon Valley. There’s been little lasting outcry about that, and I have to admit I didn’t think about it when I went to AMC theaters recently, or when I took my last Uber, so I am a bit guilty of muddying these waters as well.

  Of course the answers aren’t actually all that easy. As I look at the debates on the Sackler donations to museums, I find it just a touch ironic that those same protestors don’t seem to mind grants from the foundations of former crooks and robber-barons. As I’ve said before, the arts are fine taking money from dead capitalists, just not from those still breathing. There’s no clean money in the world, but you can at least try to do things a better way.

  Meanwhile, over in brand-land, where I currently live, we have plenty of examples of brands trying their best to get this stuff right, and make the world a better place. This week’s Guardian article on Yvon Chouinard is a good example of a brand (Patagonia, a former client) doing the right thing. And while Chouinard thinks no one else is joining the fight, I see plenty of others doing more than just green-washing. A lot of brands/companies are responding to the push from consumers to do the right thing, and seem a lot less conflicted about it.

  I find it interesting that my brand clients seem to have a better sense of ethics these days than my film and art-world ones, but I guess that’s the new world we live in.

  WHAT I’M READING: FILM

   

  AI Eats the World - Modeling edition - people keep telling me actors are irreplaceable, but I'm not so sure. In the lead up, someone has created an AI that can generate fake models modeling fake clothes. Watch the video. H/T to Daniel Miessler's Unsupervised Learning.

  

  What's up in the Doc Marketplace? Anthony Kaufman has a great story covering every angle in IndieWire this week. I don't usually link to Indiewire - because you all read it already, right... - but this one is a must read. Especially interesting - IDFA announcing the end of their signature Central Pitch, and his take on what's working and not. I recommend this for everyone - filmmakers, producers, buyers and brands thinking about the doc space.

  WHAT I’M READING: BRANDED CONTENT

  Carrie Brownstein on How Portlandia Launched her Branded Content Career: Much like the Kenzo short she directed, which put the story first as opposed to the brand, Brownstein endeavors to work with more brands that are “interested in doing things that feel like there is a connection with the audience that transcends the product itself.”

  Spotify launches voice-enabled ads on mobile devices: an interesting look at how ads will engage in new innovative ways in down the line. And remember how people used to tell you how important cell phones would be and you didn’t know what they meant? That’s what’s happening next with voice, so this is pretty important.

  After Streamlining Web Presence, Vice reportedly raises $250 million in Debt Funding: Vice rolls on, but my take is that Vice has been in the dead-pool for quite some time now (but investors and branded content deals may keep them zombie-live for a bit longer).

  P&G is Moving Heavily into Branded Content - and the Drum has the interview w/ Marc Pritchard (their Chief Brand Officer), explaining why - to engage consumers more creatively. He also explains that in an OTT streaming area, they need to go “"back to the future" … with a 'brought-to-you-by' message upfront, rather than integrating into or overtly advertising within the series.” Which leads me to believe that the “back to the future” analogy will play out for awhile and lead us right back to… interruptive advertising as brands inevitably try to differentiate once again. But let’s enjoy it while it lasts.

  

  Verizon announced it has bought 5B and is bringing it to market - I’ve been lucky to meet producer Rupert Maconick via BrandStorytelling, and watched this film at their last event - it’s a great doc about nurses leading the charge in the fight against HIV/AIDS in the early days (they noticed something was going on), and I’m glad to hear it’s found a great home. It will apparently come out under the RYOT label, and be tied to their LGBTQ+ initiatives. Kudos to all involved, and I can honestly say - watch this one when you get the chance.

• Entrepreneurial Producing, in memory of Steve Golin; Facebook & Blockchain & Film and More

  • Posted on 3rd May
  • Category:

   

   

  Two weeks ago I was asked to speak at Ira Deutchman’s class at Columbia University along with Karol Martesko-Fenster of Abramorama and Eric Kohn of Indiewire. Many of the students were aspiring producers, and they asked many smart questions about building a sustainable career.

  I mentioned to them that I’ve always felt that Steve Golin had the right idea with Anonymous Content - where he produced Academy Award winning films, but made most of his money by being nimble -  making advertising and branded content, producing TV and episodic shows, and from their management business. Little did I know that he would pass away just four days later, and the film world would lose another great one. John Singleton just passed away this week as well, which was a devastating loss for the business, and he was quite the entrepreneur too (directing movies big and small, TV and producing as well)  but that’s another post.

  The WSJ had a great article about Steve’s business model back in 2016, and I reference it in my pubic talks all the time. The article was written just as Spotlight and The Revenant were headed to the Oscars, and it pointed out that “It’s the result of a multitentacled business model and a perpetual willingness to pivot quickly in response to shifting industry dynamics.” Commenting on his Oscar noms, Golin said  “I wouldn’t want to make my living doing them.” Nope, he made his money, and his career, by being a multi-hyphenate, entrepreneur - not too precious to do work that pays the bills in order to survive.

  That’s what I think any aspiring indie producer needs to do today - diversify your income streams so that you can pay the bills and afford to make the “one-off” artistic films you love. And there’s never been a better time to do that than now - every platform is making “content,” every brand is making films, and new business models are being built daily. It can be easy to fret when it’s harder and harder to stand out from the crowded field but as Steve Golin was in the middle of exploring when he passed away- it’s also a time of opportunity for smart producers.

  WHAT I’M READING: FILM

  Facebook is moving into CryptoCurrency, which is big for media, and everything else. - The WSJ reports (paywall, so check Gizmodo for a sampling) that Facebook has been meeting with big banks and financiers about launching ‘Project Libra,’ which will involve a digital token/cryptocurrency scheme that allows everything from in-app payments to a new system to monetize your likes and ad-watching. I’ve been writing about blockchain and what it means for media for a long-time (Since 2014), and this is huge news. Think Facebook is a big monopoly now? Just wait til you can get reward points (like Skymiles) for watching an ad, and then apply those points to buy a product. Or maybe you share my film’s trailer and get points that allow you to watch my film for free. Or take the next step, and maybe you only “pay” for the minutes you watch, and I get paid in return based on those minutes, with my points convertible to cash, or maybe worth more as further payments for more films.

  This is just the tip of the iceberg. The holy grail, so to speak, has always been that digital tokens and crypto- will work even better once we’re tethered to a new generation of digital devices. Think Oculus, and the new Oculus Quest. Facebook will know a lot more about what you truly watch or play with, how you interact and for how long, and all of this is data that can become monetized (tokenized) and used by Facebook, advertisers and others. A lot more to be said here, but that’s another post as well.

  Ten minutes is all you need for Nick Hornby’s latest creation - more proof that Hollywood has finally woken up to the ten minute episodic trend, as SundanceTV follows Quibi into solid 10-minute creative films. While this trend is about a decade late, it’s about time, and it’s going to put a lot of pressure on both under-funded short films and branded content to up their game.

  Avengers and the Content End-Game - Matt Zoller Seitz has a magnum opus write up this week on the convergence of episodic TV and cliff-hanger movies and how “content” has now beat “cinema,” and what this means for our historic art form of one-off narrative films. As he says, they still exist for now, but “as a knowingly retro experience—the audiovisual equivalent of writing a sonnet, or painting with a brush and  watercolor.” Somewhat depressing, but Zoller Seitz is taking the long-view and has good thoughts about what might come in the future. A long but essential read.

  The future of film streaming is a lot like music, which is not good - as Darren Hemming’s writes, Music Streaming Services are Gaslighting Us In a wonderful analogy, he compares music discovery and listening today to going to an indie record store in the Nineties to pick up a new album, and the record store employee hitches a trailer to your car filled with thousands of new records you can never hope to listen to: “You can’t store this stuff, very little of it is familiar, and mentally you’re overwhelmed.” Much like music today, and pretty much the same for film. Silicon Valley has fooled us into believing that access to everything is a good thing (and that it is sustainable for any artists). His solution- “Focus on spending a bit more money on artist channels that actually benefit them in a meaningful way. We need an equivalent to the Fair Trade mark in coffee; means to understand that when you spend money on an artist, they are the main beneficiary and not the platform.”

  Still can't figure out Netflix's long-term goals? I think it's simple, but the Conversation proposes maybe it's really a data play, with lots of implications.

  Rooftop Film’s Summer Slate is Up and Tickets are for Sale: Live in NYC, or visiting his Summer? Then don’t miss the Rooftop Films Summer Series. The schedule is live and impressive.

  WHAT I’M READING: BRANDED CONTENT

  

  AirBNB is moving into film. They don’t seem to have any strategy, but they’ve done well with their magazine, so let’s give it some time. The cynical side of me thinks this was just a PR ploy to downplay Marriott launching its own competitor to AirBNB, and Marriott also makes films...but nah, that can’t be the case.

  The TribecaX Awards were announced this week, and while I wrote about my dislike of brand film awards last week, they remain one way to find the good stuff. Kudos to my friend from BrandStorytelling, Angela Matusik at HP who won for Best Episodic with History of Memory, Directed by Sarah Klein and Tom Mason, two very good filmmakers.

  6 Ways OTT is shaking up the TV Landscape from Nudity to New Ads AdAge reports on how advertisers and broadcasters are thinking about OTT. One interesting take - a need for more localized OTT options.

• Ten Trends to Embrace in Branded Content and other Sub-Genre news for April 25

  • Posted on 25th Apr
  • Category: Newsletter

  

  Lately, as I’ve been consulting with many of my brand clients, one thing keeps striking me about the media/film marketplace, and it has quite a few implications for the branded content space. Put simply the field has matured, and that means what was once good enough isn’t any longer. With more brands making good, quality content than ever before, and with the simultaneous rise in SVOD platforms spending more and more to make the best films, Brands making content need to step up their game.

  Here are ten areas where I think brands need to concentrate in the next 12-18 months:

  1. Diversity – Everyone is paying lip-service to diversity, but too few brands are taking this seriously. The world has changed – it’s no longer about giving some equal time, but about being relevant to the new majority audience. This means not just more diverse stories in front of the camera, but perhaps more importantly, behind it. And that means not just the director, but the production companies being hired and (if you’re using them) the creatives at your agency. I’ve attended many a branded content conference/event, and trust me, they are currently whiter than the Academy, or the indie film world, and this needs to change.
  2. Up the ante – Take a look at any awards show for branded content, and be honest – there’s a lot of same-old, same-old going on. Brands need to up the ante and raise the stakes a bit. This means several things, but taking more risk, and stepping outside your comfort zone is the underlying need in the space. This also leads to the next four needs;
  3. More narratives – You would think documentary is the only cinematic art-form if you only watched branded content. Of course, if you only watched branded content, you’d need our head examined, but that’s another post. While there are some notable exceptions (Somerstown, Lego Movie, Uncle Drew, Marriott’s Two Bellmen, BMW’s short’s The Hire, Carmilla, among others), too often, brands are focusing all of their messaging around documentary instead of narrative. I get it – no SAG, no agents, it feels easier to jump into docs. More importantly, I think brands are doing this because they crave authenticity – the only buzzword that could top curation this year- and docs seem to lend authenticity to a brand. But this has opened up a big opportunity – with so few brands making narrative films (short or features), a smart brand can really make its mark in this space. How to do this is a longer post, but for now, just consider that narratives open up a whole new area for press, audience recognition, story-telling possibilities and – when done right – could bring more authenticity to a brand. I think this is the future for branded content.
  4. Turn to features – One could argue that brands are making short form content because that’s what people are watching online, it’s easier to view on mobile, especially with our on-the-go lifestyles, and the other usual arguments. And for many productions, this is true, but I suspect a big reason many brands are making shorts is that they just think it’s easier than making a feature. And let’s face it, if that’s your reason, it’s lazy. The decision to make short form vs. long form should be based on your goals, your intended audience and how you want to fit in the cultural conversation (among a few other things). Often times, a brand’s message would be better served by long-form content, be it documentary or narrative. Why? When done right, a feature film can have a greater impact. It’s seen differently, often more seriously, by audiences. It has a different release strategy, which often includes broadcast, theatrical or SVOD – and while these bring their own headaches and stumbling-blocks, they also open up many more avenues for earned media, and for meaningful additional marketing opportunities. While a few brands (and many of my clients, showing my bias) are doing this, more brands need to start playing around in this area.
  5. Top Talent – But you can’t up your game, move into narrative, or make feature films and have a success unless you’re working with the best talent. That means not just turning again and again to the same producers you’ve trusted for so long, and broadening the scope of who you consider. It means looking at their IMDB page and reviews, not just their reel (commercial reels are always pretty slick). It means you’ll have another layer of red-tape, as they all have top agents (meaning a whole other level of asshole). But working with auteurs also brings more credibility, better story-telling, and a whole mess of new earned media opportunities.
  6. More $ - All of these ideas are expensive. But the main reason brands need to increase their investment in branded content is that in a maturing market, you have to up your game and invest in quality content, and good films aren’t cheap. This can’t be driven by a need to cut your advertising budget. While many have been made cheaper, quality documentaries cost $750,000/hr and up. A good narrative film can quickly run into the low Millions. But when Quibi is investing as much as $150,000 per minute for ten minute shorts, your little $7500 Op-Doc style short has a lot more competition.
  7. Truly give creative control – It can’t be said enough – give full creative control to the filmmakers you work with, and you’ll see greater success. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t show you cuts and keep you informed (I’ve seen the lack of communication become a disaster). But stick with what you know best, and let the creatives do the same. Seemingly obvious pro tip – be super clear with your goals, objectives and vision at the start, and build in approvals at different stages if needed (script, rough cut 1, etc.), and things will go easier for both parties.
  8. More partnerships – I’m often shocked at how often brands just go it alone in making films. It seems obvious – own it outright - but it’s not the norm in most filmmaking. There’s usually a few partners involved – studios, different producers/financiers, and in the doc world, there might be 10-20 grant givers involved or more. I think brands need to partner more often, and this will lead to better films, and more help when it comes time for distribution and outreach. Of course, I don’t expect to see Pepsi working with Coke, but The North Face working with Macarthur Foundation, or with the Nature Conservancy, sure. Behind the scenes, I’m working with some folks to build more of these networks, and hope to announce more soon, but in the near-term, brands should look for like-minded partners to approach their films a bit more often.
  9. Own the marketing – Again, should be obvious, but when it comes to film, too many brands focus on making the film (the thing they don’t know how to do) and forget to build an awesome marketing campaign around it, and that’s where you excel. No one – literally no one – in film not named Disney or A24 understands marketing. Brands do. Keep your focus there. And this means being creative marketing ideas, not just throwing a ton of money at your media agency and hoping for views. You’d think this one would be easy, but countless brands fail at this part of the film business, and I think it’s primarily because they don’t do the next thing.
  10. Think about distribution from day one, not when you’re done – Too often, I get called when a brand has finished a film, and they say some variation of – “we just finished this movie, but now we don’t know what to do, can you help?” Happy to take that business and try my best, but as I tell these callers, that’s usually about a year too late. We’ve learned this in the indie film business and brands need to think about it as well – you need to start building your marketing campaign at the same time that you develop the creative ideas. Sure, things will ramp up as you get to later stages, but so much of your campaign might depend on the type of film you’re making, or it needs ancillary footage to be shot, or it mandates a distribution time-line that needs to be thought about early. Or maybe the audience is on NatGeo, and you should be co-producing instead of trying to sell it to the highest bidder at some festival. Or you need to activate your retail stores, and it might take six months to move that ship. There are lots of reasons, but trust me, you can’t start thinking about this too soon, and if you wait too long, media buys are just about your only (remaining) option. Don’t be that guy premiering your film at a conference/festival, and when the press asks “what’s next” your only answer is – we’re still figuring that out.

  And one bonus note.

  1. Skip branded content awards and go for real festivals – This one won’t make me any friends in the festival/awards world, but I say, skip them. They are meaningless. They were made to get big admission fees from brands and agencies, and they’re mainly pushed by agencies so they can show their clients that they can win some award. But the only awards and festivals that matter for branded content are not judged by a bunch of other advertising execs (who are usually white, btw). The important awards are getting into the regular program at a real film festival, or making a film good enough that reviewers want to watch it and you get Rotten Tomato scores, or that audiences show up and you can show butts in seats (or online views), and that lead to more earned media. Premiering at your booth at SXSW, and then winning a brand film fest award, and then getting 5K views on YouTube is not a plan or a success.

  WHAT I'M READING: FILM

  Disney and the Future of TV - Stratchery has a great write-up on Disney+, why it’s a smart move and the future of TV in general.

  In light of last week's post about re-imagining public media, I should point out that the current state of public media is once again under threat. Recode and Kara Swisher interview PBS CEO Paula Kerger about what's at stake.

  Still don't understand this whole writers vs agents thing? The American Prospect has a good summary, and ties it more directly to the private equity titans in the room (via Redef).

  Disney+ is the service Apple wants - More bets on Apple buying Disney

  

  AI is coming for Hollywood Next: says Nick Bilton in Vanity Fair, and which is exactly what I told the students at Columbia when I visited Ira Deutchman’s class last week. Don’t believe it? Every time you think some Hollywood movie is “formulaic,” it’s a hint at how easily robots will take over this sector.

  WHAT I'M READING: BRANDED CONTENT

  Creepy Facebook patent uses image recognition to scan your personal photos for brands This one is scary, but worth reading to see our future/present.

  Skip the branded content? Luke Blaser, writing for US Campaign, goes against the grain and argues that brands should take a step back when it comes to content creation and focus their resources on the actual products. Where does the promotion then come in? The consumers of course. Let the influences do what they do best.

  Fullscreen research demonstrates how branded social content can positively impact offline sales  If that’s your goal.

  WHAT I'M READING: Games

  Don’t make a pot-themed game - because while murder, sex and mayhem are all fair “game” in the gaming industry, even legalized weed is still a no-no when it comes to marketing and promotion of games on Facebook, YouTube, many gaming systems and more, reports TechCrunch. Sickening, if you think about it for too long, I think

• Cleveland Rocks - or how to Run a Film Fest; and news on streaming, Branded Content and more

  • Posted on 12th Apr
  • Category: Newsletter

  

  I’m just back from five days of being on the Nesnady + Schwartz “Portrait” Doc Jury for the Cleveland International Film Festival, and it reminded me once again of how important regional film festivals are to independent film.

  Unfortunately, if you want to copy CIFF and run a great festival, you might just have to move your festival to Cleveland. So much about what makes them great is because of the local community. The audiences are amazing, with over 108,000 attendees, and it was common for mid-afternoon, weekday screenings of obscure documentaries to sell-out a 300 seat theater – the people of Cleveland love films. There’s something about being near the Great Lakes that feeds cinema lovers – because Cleveland audiences remind me of those in Toronto, another great festival city that is somehow better known.

  And the City supports the arts. The main museums are free, and the Cuyahoga County Arts Council – Cuyahoga Arts and Culture (CAC) – is one of the largest public funders of the arts in the US. Beyond the government support, the majority of the festival’s sponsors are locally based corporations. Indeed, the festival’s $3.3 Million cash budget is made up of largely local support (with in-kind support, their budget is over $4.4 million).

  Most importantly, the board supports the organization, with a full 10% of their funding coming from their board. Having been involved with some (ahem, deadbeat) boards, I can tell you, that’s an amazing amount. You can have great programming, but without a supportive board (meaning with cash), you won’t get far and too fests are saddled with well-meaning volunteers instead of board leaders who can give/get or get off.

  In addition, local members make up 13% of their funding; heck, the local community contributed $150,000 towards a challenge match during the festival (making it $300K with the match).

  Of course, you won’t get this kind of community support without great programming and a hard-working staff behind the scenes, which the festival has as well. The core festival leadership has been working at CIFF for as many as twenty years or more, each – and this isn’t dead-wood, but a sign of committed staff who love their community and their festival.

  Aside from hiring great people, many of these things are hard to duplicate in every town/city to make a great festival. But CIFF does a lot of other things right, many of which can be duplicated. Here’s just a few:

  • Doing fundraising right – one last thing about their fundraising – they do it right. They only ask for donations once a year, instead of bugging you with fundraising emails every week. And they do it before every show, pointing out that the cost of the fest is about $50 per seat – way less than the ticket price, and that makes it real for the audience, and people opened their wallets.
  • Hospitality – the fest has a great hospitality room, and its open all day to not just filmmakers and VIP sponsors, but also to members and badge holders, with free coffee, food, beer and even ice cream. They put everyone up in great hotels, central to the festival and show people a good time. And like any good festival, they have great parties – keep the filmmakers drunk and they’ll love you.
  • Central locations – apparently, CIFF is the largest festival under one roof in the USA (if not the world), and that helps a lot. While the festival expanded to two outside locations this year, most of the festival takes place at the Tower Center. Yes, it’s a half-dying mall, but for the life of the festival, it’s a convenient one-stop shop for all things film, with plenty of parking. And if you’re visiting from out-of-town, you can find plenty to do within walking distance.
  • Great programming, serving its audience – this should go without saying, we all know you need good programming. But I’ve been to many festivals where the programming is more reflective of its programmer’s taste than its local audience. There’s a difference between challenging your audience here and there and being a snob. Cleveland has the right balance.
  • Multiple Audience Awards – the festival had four juried competitions (three made up of out of towners), but the rest of the awards are decided by the audience. That’s rare and smart - put the audience in charge, and it pays back when they actually show up for the awards ceremony. See all the winners here.

  I’ve run and/or been involved with a few film festivals. Inevitably, some well-meaning board member always says – we should aim to be more like Sundance. But I maintain that the US only needs one Sundance. What we really need are a lot more Cleveland’s.

  update: I forgot to mention in my original post that the Film Festival Alliance held a regional roundtable at CIFF, so they are on it when it comes to learning from the fest, and sharing other ideas to get even better.

  What I’m Reading: FILM

  The Sky Is Rising: The Entertainment Industry Is Thriving, Almost Entirely Because Of The Internet - TechDirt reminds us that years ago, Hollywood was sure the Net would drive them out of business - just like VHS tape - only to learn once again that new tech always helps the bottom line (while destroying many legacy business models).

  How Vimeo shifted from being a YouTube alternative to a $160m B2B player - This one is all pro-Vimeo, but given that everyone I know is trading Frame.io links now instead of Vimeo, and their ad campaign sucks horribly, I am counting them in the “fire sale” bin pretty soon. But maybe Digiday has it right, not me.

  “Her Smell’s writer-director breaks down the stark reality that film distribution today is an inequitable system that excludes almost everyone”. This one’s made the rounds, including the Sundance newsletter, but just in case you missed it, Alex Ross Perry explains how First Reformed shows how f-d we are these days.

  Stacy Spikes finally gives his views on what went on at MoviePass - Jason Guerassio at BusinessInsider has all the news you need to know on what worked  -and then what didn’t work -at MoviePass. Especially interesting is his claim that they verified giving AMC 100% lift in customers, and probably brought up the box office overall by a 5% lift. If true, astounding. It’s also a sad read about how a brand with amazing customer loyalty could kill it all within less than a year.

  [caption id="attachment_1427" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Killing a brand in one image[/caption]

   

  What I’m Reading: BRANDED CONTENT

  Are Brands missing out on OTT? Yes, says OpenX Chief Communication and Brand Officer Dallas Lawrence to Forbes. As he points out: “Last year, brands spent $70 billion advertising to television audiences, mostly using a media strategy that look more like 1995 than 2018. “Only 5% of all ad dollars go to OTT, even though more than 50% of the audience is there,” he tells them. And his company’s data also shows that while nearly 50% of audiences would pay $10 to skip ads on OTT, 25% prefer a free service with ads, and 29% want a hybrid model with a few ads and a lower monthly cost. Expect to see more brands in your OTT feed, and smart ones should be funding original content in these systems, or they’re missing out on most of their potential viewers.

  Lush UK has decided to move away from social media, reports Econsultancy. Lush smartly says it doesn’t want to pay to end up in your feed, and notes that they want to inspire more conversation, not less. Econsultancy analyzes the pros and cons, as well as whether its just a stunt, but I say kudos to anyone who stops polluting my feed with sponsored posts.

  Are ‘documercials’ the future of branded content? Mehdi Elaichouni argues that not only are documentaries about brands more effective branded content than narrative stories, they can also serve as a saving grace for companies in PR Trouble (i.e Dirty Money)

   Why brands are turning to Amazon Prime Video to distribute their own content - hint: they can control their distribution and it’s easy to do.

   

• Towards a New Public Media, and more Sub-Genre news for April 3

  • Posted on 12th Apr
  • Category: Newsletter

  

  Well, my last post seemed to touch a chord with more than a few people – apparently, many others are feeling the pain of being stuck in the indie film middle-class, and are ready to think about advocacy once again. There are myriad issues to be addressed, but my mind keeps coming back to one idea, and it’s a big one.

  It seems to me that one of the biggest problems we have is a lack of imagination about what it means to build a space for public media – and the public good – in an online world. The beginnings of public broadcasting weren’t only tied to spectrum scarcity. Sure, in a broadcast, linear world it took government (starting in the UK) to force a set-aside for public media. But public media was equally tied to a more important underlying realization: that it was in the public’s interest to support media that wasn’t inherently commercial, or it wouldn’t get supported at all, and such a situation would be bad for democracy.

  We’ve now spent decades allowing the market to dictate what happens in the online world. At first, it seemed that unlimited space for ideas would mean that the long tail might prevail and all voices were but a click away. And to some extent, this remains true, but similarly to the broadcast world, the illusion of infinite choice can mask many failures in the market.

  On the plus side, anyone can distribute their work online, and indeed, YouTube proves that even some kid reviewing toys can amass millions of followers. And let’s give credit to Netflix for backing more diverse filmmakers and subject matter than perhaps any entity ever has in the past. But just as we didn’t count America’s Funniest Home Videos as being ample accommodation for diverse voices to be heard, we shouldn’t mistake UGC as solving this problem either. And when Netflix can cancel diverse shows that are gaining in popularity just because they don’t need the extra cost associated with going beyond a third season, we should realize that businesses don’t have our best interests as a society at heart either.

  We need a new public media. It won’t look like the old public media, but the underlying concept is the same – to use a combination of public funding, policy, foundation and (later/even) corporate support to address the failures of the market to support media as a public service.

  Now I say this in full realization that it can sound unrealistic and maybe even boring. While public media around the world remain active/vibrant in many ways, there are also many failures, capitulations to the market (and to crooked government leaders), and let’s just admit it – it’s problematic as an ideal. But a new public media, re-imagined properly, could be a game-changer, while addressing the failures of the past.

  I’m definitely not the first to think about this, and while there are many other examples, I recommend looking at Sue Gardner’s recommendations to the Knight Foundation for inspiration (from 2017). She gives a comprehensive, but short and easy to read summary of the history and background of public media and then goes on to recommend:

  Public broadcasters were designed to elevate the societies in which they operated: to help them be smarter, better informed, healthily pluralistic and successful. For decades they did exactly that. Their impact faded because of technological and public policy changes: we cut their funding, we deregulated their industry, and we didn’t make the kind of policy interventions in the digital world that we had been making for decades in conventional radio and TV.

  Today, we’re in a mess. Our societies are fractured and fragile, and we need to heal the rift between the people and the institutions intended to serve them. I believe that calls for a reinvestment in public institutions, including public broadcasters, and for those institutions to re-center themselves on public service.

  Now, she is thinking much more broadly here than I am – she’s focused on news, education and other underpinnings of democracy. Those are just as important, if not more, than supporting quality, non-commercial media, but I am focused more narrowly on how a new public media might solve the problems we’re facing in film.

  A new public media would mandate that adequate space is given to independent and non-commercial voices. While I’ll stop short of saying Netflix should be forced to carry such media, that shouldn’t be off the table for contemplation. But somehow, policy needs to dictate a space for such films. It also means that carriage/distribution is not enough – we need mechanisms for discovery and curation built into the system to help people find this media.

  A new public media should also address diversity, and this means across the spectrum. For example, American-born Latin Americans should be represented closer to proportionally and not just the broader “Latino” media. It should include narrative filmmaking, not just documentary (and not just period pieces or cooking shows, either). And short form as well as long form content.

  And a new public media would need to more broadly serve a global and a local audience. Meaning – we need to acknowledge that one failure of the marketplace is its inability to bring global voices to the US, and that we’re a global society. But at the same time, this doesn’t lessen the need for more local and regional voices, which have also historically been shut out of the mainstream.

  A new public media would also bring new funding streams, and my hope is that it would be a hybrid of public and private support, including the support of brands. I know this last part is controversial, but I refuse to believe that taking money from Patagonia is any worse than taking it from the Ford Foundation (to pick on two friendly places).

  What else do we need, and how do we get there? Well, once again, this is where advocacy comes in, and why I said last week that we need a new AIVF. It’s only by listening to the field and advocating for what people want (beyond my ideas) that we will get to any kind of solution for the future.

  What I'm Reading: FILM

  “Everything is Changing” - Sundance ran a Nice Interview w/ MoMA’s Rajendra Roy about the current state of the field, and it’s a great read about what’s going on in film exhibition, curation, archiving and more. Raj has some smart thoughts about the role of Netflix (positive) and the need for the Academy and Cannes (etc.) to change and face the future. I also appreciate his comments on the true value of critics: “The truth is I haven’t read reviews before I see them for over 10 years. I just will not read a review of a film I know I’m gonna see because I want to inform myself first, then I will ravenously read them. So if we are doing that, why would we expect that anybody else would depend on the voice of God ordaining this film as worthy of my attention?”  That doesn’t mean we lose critics, but that we need to think of curation a little differently.

  One minor quibble- Raj speaks highly of the “museumification” of cinema - where institutions like TIFF (and he hints, possibly Sundance) are building museums and “centers” for film - and suggests this is the future. I can only hope not - to me, that would be the death of cinema culture. The last thing we need are more buildings - institutions do this because that’s where the funding from rich people resides, in putting their name on a theater - but it’s not what the field needs at all. That said, Raj is one of the good ones, thinking good thoughts about the future of the field, and I highly recommend the interview.

   The WSJ reports that consumers can’t handle more streaming services (paywall for some). According to research firm, Magid, the average consumer will spend about $38 a month on as many as six services, but can’t handle much more, making it tough going for all of these new streamers (including Warner, AppleTV, etc.) And if you aren’t sure there’s too many already, just try to make it through IndieWire’s Streaming Bible without falling asleep before the comments (where some crazy people point out they missed a few services). And of course, BusinessWeek is already reporting that this glut of services might lead to some M&A activity.

  Youtube is Backing out of the Streaming Wars, showing that even Google may not have deep enough pockets to compete with Netflix, but hey, one less service!  While they keep denying it, Bloomberg reports that YouTube will no longer be creating new expensive scripted shows, that all original content will now be free (ad-supported), and that Youtube Red is transitioning into a music streaming service. Some key execs are leaving as well. When even YouTube throws in the towel, you have to seriously start thinking about new meanings for monopolies and anti-trust.

  If you still care about MoviePass and Theater-subscription plans, Screen has a good breakdown of the current state of affairs.

  Former MoviePasss CEO Stacy Spikes Launches New Tech/Film Venture: And it has almost tripled its Kickstarter goal with twenty-four days left. The idea is that in exchange for watching fifteen minutes of branded content, one gets a free movie ticket. What makes this appealing for brands is that through user data, ads can be specifically targeted toward individuals and create calls to action. And given Stacy’s track-record, it’s a just-crazy enough idea to keep watching.

  Netflix’s plan on owning your kids screentime: Going Brandless : Unlike Disney and Dreamworks (and other animation studios) Netflix animation doesn’t aim for an all-encompassing brand, rather they are seeking diverse creators to do what they do best - create great stuff. This could be a sound strategy given that the audience that Netflix is serving  is global, and diverse. But I’m a fan of building a brand, so I’d recommend they build sub-brands within Netflix (not unlike Amazon’s private labels).

  Avengers: Endgame Broke the Internet: or at least several ticketing systems, most notably AMC’s for nearly 8 hrs. This may seem like a minor story, but it’s a serious f-up with a huge fan base - one that the studio was already teasing mercilessly for weeks (on timing of ticket avails). You had one job, AMC, and it wasn’t popping corn...

  The folks at Union Docs are looking for applicants for their Collaborative studio. Highly recommend for aspiring filmmakers. as it is a comprehensive program that will get you in the room with other like minded filmmakers. From them:

  UnionDocs is currently seeking artists, thinkers and makers from across disciplines to apply for our 2019-2020 COLLABORATIVE STUDIO. This is a singular opportunity for 12 artists to participate in group research and production. Spend 10 months in an expansively designed program that fosters and deepens an understanding of documentary theory and practice, develops creative partnerships and output, and immerses participants in a community of active, like-minded individuals with a shared goal of making something together. Application deadline is 4/4 (tomorrow).

  Stuff I’m Reading: VR/AR/Branded Content:

  Burger King is encouraging users to ‘burn’ rival ads in augmented reality campaign

  In a fun new ad campaign, Burger King is having users download their App, and play an AR game in which users ‘burn away’ a competitor's ad, revealing a coupon for a free whopper. While this is gimmicky, remember - someone soon will create a similar application where anyone can block ads via AR, and I for one can’t wait til I have Android-specs that allow me to ad-block every billboard in Manhattan and replace it with cool artwork instead. That’s the real future of ad-blocking.

• Saving the Indie Film "Middle Class," what Hollywood gets wrong on YouTube and more news you can use

  • Posted on 21st Mar
  • Category: Newsletter

  

  It’s an amazing time to be a filmmaker and film lover with more places buying films than ever before (and often for record sums), and more places to watch films (and shows) as well. But as I’ve written before, there’s a simultaneous negative trend going on, where it’s getting harder and harder for the majority of filmmakers to get their films picked up and have any chance of finding an audience. In many ways, the indie film sector has split into the high and the low, with no middle to be found (much like our society).

  If your film didn’t premiere at a handful of major festivals, many distributors will pass on acquiring your film – not because they’re evil, but because they can’t take a risk when there’s fewer buyers who want these titles. Netflix, for example, had as many as 35,000 titles in its library in 2005 (when it was primarily a DVD service), but it now has just around 4,500 movies and 1,600 TV shows in its library in the US (it varies by country), and a significant portion of each are “originals,” that weren’t licensed as finished films. So as Netflix and other services become more focused on TV, originals and curated content, that means distributors have less places to license these titles and must also get pickier.

  It’s a phenomenon that’s not just impacting new American indie films – most platforms don’t want to license older, “library” titles at all, so distributors don’t want them either. I’ve had numerous filmmakers approach me with Award-winning, Sundance premiering, once-popular films that are less than ten years old, but they can’t get anyone to help them keep their films available to the public because that market has collapsed. Many foreign-language titles aren’t licensed here at all – as one leading foreign sales agent from France told me last year – the US market brings him less licensing revenue than Benelux, and he’s almost ready to give up on us (he was slightly joking…I hope).

  While it’s easy to get cynical, I don’t blame this on Netflix (or Amazon, or Hulu, or distributors) at all. Netflix has been a boon for many shows, films and creators – especially when it comes to diversity – but it’s not a public service. It’s spending a ton of money to make & license content, and if the market doesn’t support it, that money has to be used elsewhere. Netflix is just doing its job as a market leader that could be dethroned at any time. It has to cut underperformers and re-designate that money to possible winners before it becomes the underperformer itself.

  This is a market problem, and while usually these represent opportunities for competitors to exploit, that won’t be the case here – long story short, the market is never going to find a solution that solves the problems of indie films getting to an audience. But it’s a problem that affects everyone in the business – whether you are making films, funding them, distributing them, starring in them, or just watching them.

  I’ve been saying for a long time that the indie film sector- especially the nonprofits, film festivals and foundations that support it – will need to solve this problem together. As I contemplated this problem this past week, my mind went back to the beginnings of Netflix entering the streaming business (announced in January, but launched in February, 2007), and something else that happened around that same time – the death of AIVF in June of 2006. I think these two events are intimately related (along with the purchase of YouTube by Google in November, 2006) to our core problem for indies – the death of the “middle class,” and hints at how we solve it as well.

  For those of you who don’t know AIVF, it was the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers (link has the full history), and it was one of the leading organizations for indie filmmakers in the US. Throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s, AIVF was the main advocacy organization representing independent film – it helped secure funding for indie films, advocated for the NEA’s grants to filmmakers, helped organize the beginnings of ITVS, fought budget cuts to public media, started one of the first magazines for indie film (The Independent) and so much more. Yes, we eventually had organizations like IFP and Sundance, but AIVF was one of the first in the space (so was Women Make Movies), and it was always more focused on advocacy than any of the others.

  By the early 2000’s, AIVF was struggling, and I wrote a couple of posts about its pending and eventual demise, which you can read (along with Eugene Hernandez’s piece for IndieWire linked above), and Jim McKay wrote a nice piece back then as well. As I said then in a piece for IndieWire (note that I didn’t even mention YouTube):

  "we have some great new possibilities, such as Google Video, iTunes and Netflix. But these are corporate entities; they are beholden to their shareholders, not to the needs of the independent community. There is no guarantee that they           will continue to distribute your media, and none of them want to make sure you get paid fairly for it. Only a place with the public good in mind can serve the needs of independent media artists and their audiences."

  And as I said that same month in my newsletter rather dramatically but presciently, the death of AIVF would mean: “The definition of independent is debated regularly, but could soon just mean one thing: alone.”

  Well, that’s exactly where we’ve ended up. In a sense, AIVF was the union for the middle-class filmmaker, and just like in the real world, the decline of the middle-class can be pegged directly to the decline of the unions, and for us – AIVF. It’s not that AIVF would have stopped the market from shaping how Netflix behaves – but that when we lost AIVF, we lost any semblance of a place that can fight to build an alternative for the rest of us. Movements need leaders, and without an AIVF, we’ve had no one to organize the field to create the systems we need.

  Yes, we have great organizations that might take up the cause – IFP, Sundance, Impact Partners, IDA, Kartemquin and many great festivals (if I didn’t mention your favorite org, it’s unintentional) – but solving the problems around building a better ecosystem for independent media artists is bigger than any one of their missions and if they haven’t found the time to do it on their own since 2006, it’s not going to happen now (but they’ll collaborate on the answer).

  We need a new AIVF, but for the modern era.

  I’m not sure what it should look like, but I know we need it, or something like it. I imagine it’s more of a with-profit than a nonprofit, meaning some hybrid of nonprofit activism and services, coupled with some for-profit, entrepreneurial activities.

  It would enable us to re-envision what a new home for truly indie films would look like – and corral the miscellaneous support groups, festivals, producers, services and platforms to help make it a reality. It would advocate for this need with foundations and other funders, who are currently too enamored with putting their logo on films (via production-funding) to think about the bigger problems of distribution and audience-building. It would advocate at the government level for a new generation of public media, for funding to make this a reality, and for public support (which is hard when people think they have access to everything already). It would take the lead on projects like bringing more transparency to the business, or demanding more diversity behind the camera, or making sure that Spielberg doesn’t hurt indies when he tries to kill Netflix.

  These are just a few of the myriad needs we have that no one else is fully addressing. Advocacy and service organizations may not be sexy anymore, but I think the past 13 or so years have proven they’re needed more than ever. I may be proposing something too quixotic, but if anyone else agrees, maybe we can get a movement started.

  What I'm Reading - FILM:

  What Movie Studios are doing wrong, and what they should be doing on YouTube according to Little Monster media. What’s wrong: Letting others profit from their clips (and own their audiences); unde-utilizing their library content; trying to be everything for everyone (because they don’t know their audience); not making content endemic to YouTube are chief among the mistakes. What should they be doing? Watch the video to find out, but it’s partly fixing those mistakes and partly - taking YouTube more seriously (as opposed to Facebook, for example), because that’s where the fans are already located. Good advice for brands, and to some extent, indies, marketing films as well.

  This bias against YouTube in the film world, also applies to Hollywood’s lack of respect for Freddie Wong as well. Freddie Wong went on Corridor Cast recently to explain how he built over 8 Million Subscribers, and more than 1.6 Billion video views on YouTube, but found Hollywood didn't care. It's a sobering statement from a DIY pioneer, and a dumb move on the part of Hollywood and other potential partners.

  Why, Exactly, Do We Still Trust Telecom Megamerger 'Synergy' Promises? | Techdirt wants to know, and so should you. Time and again, these mega-mergers don’t only not bring the benefits to consumers that they promise, but they fail miserably as business ideas.

  But I’m Not a Lawyer, I’m an Agent: Want to understand the fight between the WGA and the agencies about packaging fees? Nope, but you probably want a good read anyway? If you read one thing this week, make it David Simon’s take-down of CAA and other agents. Laugh a minute stuff here, but dead-serious as well.

  Amazon is slashing royalties for video makers uploading to Prime Video This one has made the rounds, but further sign of the lessening value of indie and similar content to the online eco-system.

  There’s another new social video sharing platform - and this one, Firework, allows for you to shoot for both horizontal or vertical viewing mode - just to drive filmmaker purists crazy.

  Keep Your DVDs and BluRays, to avoid Corporate Censorship...and shitty business practices, says WaPo.

   

  What I'm Reading - BRANDED CONTENT:

  After laying off 250 staffers, Vice is now looking to raise $200 million Good money after bad...

  Russo Brothers & Justin Lin Team To Launch Superconductor, Creative Services Agency reports Deadline. Looks like branded content is getting some serious new entrants.

  

  Tongal is helping bring together brands with emerging filmmakers by giving them the opportunity to create their own Alien short film. While this is a bit of old news, I’d missed it, and it’s a pretty cool use of branded content by a Studio.

   

  What I'm Reading - VR/AR/AI:

  VR might be the future, but it’s not gonna be made at Google - Google is reportedly shutting down its in-house VR film studio. Is this a sign that others can make it better, or that it’s just not working? I think the jury is still out, but this is a set-back, for sure.

  At SXSW, filmmaker Brillhart is looking into the 'uncharted territories' of VR, AR A good summary of what Jessica Brillhart is up to post-Google, which is a good hint at where the field should be going next. Among her projects - VR for people with disabilities, spatial audio and experimentation: ““The systems in place are trying to keep something contained that should be constantly evolving,” she said. “Immersive cannot be contained. What we should fear the most isn’t disruption, it’s thinking things will always stay the same. No matter what the old guard says, our generation gets this stuff.”

  [caption id="attachment_1412" align="aligncenter" width="300"] AICAN + Ahmed Elgammal[/caption]

  The AI-Art Gold Rush is here:  The Atlantic reports on the rise of AI-generated art - we’ve now had AI art at auction, in gallery shows, and smart folks are starting to use it to not just create new art, but predict what will become popular and do well in the marketplace. Don’t think for one second that film is immune to this either, as AI, CG and similar wizardry simultaneously improves, we’ll have AI-created films gunning for the Oscars, as well as AI algorithms determining what we watch (oh wait, we already have that…).

  Morpholio let’s you walk into any sketch via A/R. While this is being touted as a platform for architects, designers and real estate folks, I could see some cool uses for film production - running through your set, blocking the scene, etc.

   

   

• The Skoll Report on Impact Entertainment and other Sub-Genre News for March 7

  • Posted on 7th Mar
  • Category: Newsletter

   

  

   

  What's the State of Social Impact Entertainment? Well, the Skoll Center for Social Impact Entertainment and UCLA have 186 pages of thoughts about that in their new report on the State of Social Impact Entertainment.

  I’ve just barely had time to read the majority of it, but think it's a must read for everyone who cares about this space. First, as summarized by the LA Times, the report analyzes a variety of social impact projects and identifies some keys to success: "The report identifies some common characteristics among the successes of social-impact entertainment: a strong focus on the story, a deep knowledge of the issue, strategic alliances with key partners and clever distribution plans to connect with viewers."

  I think the report is a pretty good summary of where the field has been, who is doing what and what has worked - at least anecdotally. My issues are somewhat minor: it’s surprisingly thin on actual data/measurement; it's too focused on Skoll funded programs (even for a report funded by Skoll) and what I call the "doc mafia;" and if it's going to bother to include new forms like VR and short form video, it should also include more about creative uses of social media.

  But it does give a few good examples of what looks like real impact/change. And with filmmakers, foundations and now even brands wondering how to have an impact, and whether or not any of this shit works, it's a welcome addition to the ongoing dialogue. I'm sure I'll have even more thoughts as I finish reading this thing, but I recommend you add it to your reading queue (oh, and it has pretty "state of the field" maps, like the one I linked above).

  What (else) I'm Reading: Film

  Want to learn about people doing cool shit in the film business? Disrupting the status quo? Listen to Film Disruptors, the great podcast by Alex Stolz. I’ve been meaning to plug this for awhile now, but I’m behind on my podcasts to be honest (how does everyone keep up?). Every week or two, Alex interviews people doing some cool, disruptive stuff in the film business. And because he’s UK based, he has a decidedly less American focused lens, which I find refreshing.

  

  AMC Cracks the code for Movie subscriptions: Theatre attendance is up and they’re not about go out of business, quite the opposite in fact. Turns out that copying MoviePass works well, especially if you charge even more for the subscription.

  Meanwhile, MoviePass announced a new business plan, that kinda seems like the old plan. Thats said, it did bring their stock up 40% to just over a penny. But I bet they're not done disrupting just yet.

  Netflix has a message for Hollywood: Make room for others. Nicely played Netflix, and true as well - leave the Roma debates aside, no one out there is pushing diversity to the top of its agenda like Netflix. And they aren’t just doing it to look good - they have the data, and it must be working. Time for others to follow them and “make room” for more diverse story-tellers and stories.

  And Slate thinks Netflix should truly respect cinema and let us watch the f-n credits already. Gotta admit, while I disagree with Steven Spielberg in his arguments against Netflix, I loved this little article which makes a good point about what a creativity destroyer their system is, or as the writer puts it: "But until Netflix lets its customers actually watch an entire movie, no one should ever be expected to keep a straight face when they say they love cinema."

  Apple's move into Hollywood is not going so well, especially because of intrusive execs, says the NYPost of all places. Apparently, development folks are angry that Apple is so worried about being family friendly, and has a lot of notes. My take: That's par for the course when a platform is protecting a brand as important as Apple, and there's no need for them to fund the next Breaking Bad. On the other hand, with reports that CEO Tim Cook is getting heavily involved, one can only hope he isn't ruined by Hollywood the way Bezos has been, or he'll be featured in the Post a lot more often.

  Stephen Follows has a great breakdown of how a film's costs change at various budget levels. Worth a look if you want to see if your film budget is on target percentage-wise.

  Changing of the (Avant) Garde - We are losing and have lost two of the most important figures in American avant-garde cinema - Barbara Hammer and Jonas Mekas.

  Barbara Hammer's Exit Interview in the New Yorker is a must-read for anyone who knows her work or cares about the history of avant-garde and/or LGBTQ cinema.

  Sky Sitney penned a great Obituary for Jonas Mekas in the latest issue of Documentary mag online (he passed away just before Sundance). Given that she grew up around Jonas, she brings great perspective. If you don't know much about Jonas, read his obit in the NYT or their wonderful series about aging where he was featured many times. (Knowing Barbara, she might yell at me for putting a story about her next to one about Jonas, but that's another story...)

  What I'm Reading: Branded Content

  AdWeek's Arc Awards for Branded Content ran online this week, and will be celebrated at SXSW this weekend. Some great campaigns here, including P&G's "Words Matter" piece done with CNN's Great Big Story (which I reported on before), and a nice long form doc from the Nashville Convention & Visitors Bureau about songwriters that looks very interesting, It all Begins with a Song (I haven't seen the full doc  yet). Read/watch the full list here. At minimum, this list serves as a good “State of the field” report.

  Is Netflix moving into Ad-Sales and AVOD? Well, this guy on LinkedIn thinks so, and claims they're hiring for the Unit. If that's true, then we truly created the internet to make a better TV, I guess, which is a shame. But when you're bleeding (borrowed) money like Netflix, you've got two possible new revenue sources - ads and branded content, and they're already doing the latter.

  Thrive announced new hires for its branded content push, which is focused around health/wellness and experiences/events. Will be interesting to see where this goes.

  Net Neutrality Back in the News & Congress

  Ajit Pai has been trying to ruin the internet before we do it our own damn' selves, and now Congress is trying to stop him. The new Save the Internet Act has been introduced to do just what it says (and TechCrunch sums it up well). Want to add your voice by contacting your Congress-person? Click here.

  

   

• Academy Thoughts - North Face Tuxedos and Acceptance Speeches, and other Sub-Genre news

  • Posted on 28th Feb
  • Category: Newsletter

  What I’m Thinking: Academy Awards

  

  Green Book: I don’t have much to add to the backlash over the Best Picture results from the Academy Awards, as there’s been enough written about why Green Book wasn’t deserving of an Oscar. If you need any evidence, just read Shadow and Act, perhaps. Or spend your time watching Yoruba Richen’s The Green Book: Guide to Freedom doc instead, or learn how Don Shirley was evicted from Carnegie Hall in Lost Bohemia.

  But I am perplexed that the Academy can’t figure out that the only thing worth watching in their entire show is the thing they keep ruining – the acceptance speeches. Hearing the music swell as they try to push people off-stage might be the most annoying thing on the planet. I hope they play that music when they fire their leadership someday. And that can’t come too soon; only in Hollywood can you cause this much mayhem, keep your job and have the town think you saved the show…!

  It’s unconscionable that they found time to add a commercial for a nonexistent Academy Museum, but then cut short the Best Animated Feature speakers. Even when the acceptance speeches are long or flubbed, they’re still the reason people bother to watch the show. The speeches, the awards themselves, the In-Memoriam and (for some) the songs, are just about the only things worth watching, and the ratings won’t improve much until the Academy figures that out.

  Netflix: Some people blame the Green Book win on the dilemma some voters felt they faced in voting for Roma, when it would validate Netflix’s business model. Sorry folks, that battle is over and Netflix already won, even if they didn’t win the big award. It’s ridiculous to listen to these pundits say that Netflix is making TV movies like HBO, when Roma alone proves they’re making cinema. Future audiences might regret that Green Book won any awards, but they’ll definitely forget they used to go to theaters before they remember that anyone ever cared whether Netflix won an award in 2019.

  Availability, or Millions lost: While you could find many of the nominated films online for rent/sale/streaming, there were a lot of films being held back and only available in theaters or nowhere. By the time the Awards come around, everyone who is going to see the movie in theaters has done so, and there are millions more who would watch the films if they were available pre-Awards online. Studios seem to think that the Awards heighten interest post-show, but I’m willing to bet that if every film was available online for a low cost pre-Awards, they’d make millions more – quite possibly during the show when people get bored and decide just to watch that film they just saw getting snubbed.

  Alex Honnold wore a The North Face tuxedo to the Oscars for Free Solo. And if that’s not the best brand placement of the past year, I don’t know what is. Sure, lots of fashion companies outfit people for the Oscars, but The North Face sure has gotten more out of their sponsorship of Alex than perhaps any brand/athlete relationship in recent history, and what an unexpected partnership for the red carpet!

  

  What I’m Reading: Film

  SVOD Wars Updates: April is coming: And no, I’m not referring to the premier of Game of Thrones, but rather the launch of Disney Streaming service which appears to be having every major media company in a scramble to acquire as many assets as possible:

  1. Amazon spent $47 Million at Sundance for the rights of five different films.
  2. Disney ended its partnership with Netflix, canceling their Defenders series of shows. (The Motley Fool says now is the time to buy.)
  3. Hulu finds itself in a increasingly more complicated place with Disney now owning 60% of Hulu’s shares after the Fox Acquisition and the launch of Disney+ in April.

  What I’m Reading: New Media

  This Kevin Kelly article on AR and the Mirror World in Wired has been making the rounds, but just in case you missed it, and want to know more about where AR is going, it's worth a read. Kelly has a great way of pulling together disparate threads of exploration and summarizing their future directions in a way that makes you say "yup, of course that will happen." And most of it will, but thanks to advertising, with a much more dystopian flare than he tends to foresee.

  Attention economics: Another reminder that Fortnite is not the main problem facing the games industry, but rather unreasonable performance expectations for new media and competition over the dwindling time of consumers . This is true for gaming and films - you have a lot more competition, which means your “game”must be stepped up.

  What I’m Reading: Branded Content

  MediaPost argues for better metrics on ROI by tying branded to shoppable content.  While I agree we need better measurement tools and think linking branded content is one way to measure success, I’d disagree that it should be a goal for most branded content - usually the most direct connections to sales make for the worst films. Sometimes branded content should be about building the brand, not just measuring sales. But unless we come up with good metrics, this might be the only one we have.

  Whatever happened to the Denominator? Asked no one ever until  Kalev Leetaru in Forbes. But while his analysis is of Twitter and his methods are wonkish, he’s right that too often “we have traded more data for less understanding of what is in that data.” Or we’re obsessed with data instead of information… that we can actually use. Worth a read for you data nerds out there.

  Peter Berg is launching a branded content division to his production company, Film 47, and I think it’s the model for anyone trying to build a sustainable production company business:

  “It just occurred to us that we like the idea of trying to be a small, multifaceted media company that could make the film about an oil rig in Texas that blew up [Deepwater Horizon], and then make a documentary on the environmental cleanup, and everything in between,” Berg continues. “That aimed us at having our own production company/creative agency where we talk directly with clients or work directly with ad agencies, and help take on a more thorough or comprehensive role than a traditional production company.”

  Folio magazine demonstrates the need for publishers to have their own Branded Content and it’s a good summary of who is doing what right now.

   

   

   

   

   

‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›