This past week was Sundance (and Rotterdam, and Göteborg) and by nearly every account I can find – it was a roaring success. Kudos to the Sundance team, who somehow pulled off the impossible, and got even me to enjoy a “virtual” film fest. Films sold for record amounts. There seemed to be solid buzz online. The programming was great. And thanks to Mother Nature, I even found myself trudging back and forth in the snow to get to my morning swim, just like in Park City, as NYC was blanketed near the end of the fest.
Were there hiccups? Sure. But nothing worth reporting. I already tore into their website last week, but the actual experience of watching the films on their AppleTV app worked for me, and when I had to stream a film from my laptop to the TV that worked – and that’s what you want from a fest. The virtual networking at the New Frontier worked pretty well too. I don’t have VR goggles, but the works I saw on my computer were pretty solid (no one could see me in the party spaces due to some video glitch, but that could be my computer). I enjoyed being able to watch a lot more films by being at home, and while the energy of the live screenings was missing, they did the best they could (especially with well-produced Q&A’s) and set a pretty high bar for other fests to follow.
That said, it was not the essential event for my business that makes me pay up every year. There’s no replacing the one-on-one meetings, in person, that fill most of my days there. But if you are attending Sundance to see great films, talk about them with friends, discover new talent, and even buy and sell films – the festival worked. I can’t imagine the sponsors got much out of their activations, and think they (the sponsors) should focus on promoting individual films and filmmakers as opposed to hosting virtual Main Street venues, and such, in the future because there’s ironically less time online to explore anything other than the films than there is in Park City. And I await the attendance numbers, because very few things seemed to be selling out, which is not the case in most years. But all in all – I’m glad I attended the fest, if only for the great movies I saw.
One of my favorites was the first film I watched – CODA, by Sian Heder. I am biased, as it was shot in Gloucester, MA which is one of my favorite places, and I vacation there every year. And in spite of some overly-melodramatic moments, it’s a great film and well deserving of its 4 awards, and its record sale for $25M to Apple. Unfortunately, as great as that is for the film, the filmmakers, and everyone involved, it will also contribute to the great myth of Sundance, and of indie film generally. Such sales are the fuel that fires the dreams that send kids to film schools across the country, hoping to be the next director or producer living their dream and making it big. The great myth is that this is the norm. But as anyone who knows the business well can tell you - the films that sell at Sundance, and that do so at a price where the creators and investors “hit the jackpot” represent the 1%. It’s great for those that get lucky, but it isn’t the reality most will encounter. One could argue that no single event has pushed this myth harder than Sundance – and I’m not faulting the fest and its organizers when I say that, as it’s out of their control – the myth is pushed more by everyone around the festival, than from within.
That’s why it is so important that Rebecca Green of Dear Producer released her Producer’s Sustainability Survey and Report during the fest – as a bit of a corrective to the myth(s) that come out of Sundance each year. The Report is pretty depressing, but it’s also quite an achievement – the kind of work one might think some nonprofit would produce, not a lone indie producer. 550 producers responded and 474 completed most of the survey. They were experienced producers - the average person who took the survey is 43 yrs old with 6-15 yrs of producing under their belt, and at least one feature commercially released in the past ten years. Odds are good, they produced films you’ve loved and consider successful – the kinds playing Sundance this week.
It’s worth reading the entire report, even if the picture it paints is pretty bleak – in summary, no, producing is not a sustainable career path. But I found a few findings very important, and worth some discussion. (Side note – I know these are first world problems in the grand scheme, but they remain important in the context of our field).
Average Earnings:
- In 2019, 30% of respondents reported an income of $50K or less from all sources, including producing. In 2020, nearly 42% reported an income of $50K or less.
- In 2019, 41% of respondents earned $25K or less exclusively from producing. In 2020, income from producing dropped significantly, with 56% of respondents earning $25K or less.
- More than a quarter of respondents earned less than $2,500 from producing in 2020.,
- Only 14% made over $100K from producing in 2020, with just 3.1% over $250K, meaning the “rich” producer is definitely an anomaly.
- The numbers don’t make a huge jump when you consider all other sources of income, by the way.
To put this in perspective – every day, I walk past a fast-food restaurant that is advertising management-in-training positions with $65K earnings potential. Do what you love, sure, but keep that in mind as you negotiate your next producer’s fee.
Another earnings report came out in Variety this week, focused on Hollywood assistants. It found that “nearly 80% of respondents reported earning less than $50,000 in 2020, a 14.7% increase from the prior year. And over a third of respondents reported less than $30,000 in income in 2020 — a marked increase from the 11% who made that much in 2019.” So Indie Producers and Hollywood assistants have a lot in common (wages, and having to deal with agents way too much for what they’re getting paid).
Further to that, the Variety report notes that “Earning less than $53,600 a year in Los Angeles qualifies as being “cost-burdened” by U.S. Department of Housing and Development, which defines it as paying “more than 30 percent of their income for housing” and potentially having “difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.” I imagine that number is true in NYC as well, and not much better in many urban centers across the US. In sum – these aren’t living wages.
Of course, there’s a missing question – household wealth. Anecdotally, people say many filmmakers (both producers and directors) come from wealthy backgrounds, and I would suspect that this contributes to the number of people who are still doing this work in spite of the low pay (this also impacts diversity in the field). That said, the survey found only 11% had retirement savings over $500K, and when asked what kind of other financial support producers have, 18.5% answered spouse or partner, 3.9% parent or family, and 3% inheritance. This would tell us that perhaps the wealthy background part is also a myth – or at least only applies to a subset of filmmakers. Regardless, if we’re focused on the work – the low pay matters even more when you look at the next set of findings.
Deferred Fees and Personal Expenses
- More than 80% of respondents have had to defer their producing fee on at least one project, with nearly 50% deferring their fee on multiple projects.
- For most of the 80% who said they have been asked to defer their fees, it was not a one-time occurrence. More than 70% had been asked to defer all or some of their fees on at least two projects.
- Not only are they asked to defer fees, but many put personal money into projects. When combining average spend across all categories, producers paid $9K of their personal money per project. Keep in mind that is a deduction from the income mentioned above!
But this is the biggest part of the myth that needs to be dispelled. Because 54.8% reported no back-end compensation on any film, and another 35.1% reported just 1-2 films that had paid out any back-end. There is no back-end.
The upfront fee paid for a film is often the only money you’ll see, and that’s increasingly true in an SVOD world where there are no ancillary revenues or payments. Sure, there are success stories like CODA, but for every one of those, there are thousands of films that didn’t even make the cut into Sundance, and increasingly, that also means less options to sell and recoup.
So why do people keep doing this job? Well, the report has many good things too – and in summary, producers love the work they do, and are driven by a desire to “inject more original voices into film and storytelling.” And that’s what the good ones do. It’s why we have Sundance, and can enjoy these movies – because a producer helped a director (along with help from a whole team of people) bring their vision to the screen. If we want to keep seeing these stories, then we need to make producing more sustainable.
My hope is that this report will be just one step towards a larger conversation about how we address these issues. There’s lots of places to start, but I have a few thought experiments where we could begin. Like: why don’t we compare these numbers to the average income of the sales agents and distributors who profit from this work? Or to the leadership executives at the larger “prestige” festivals doing the same (the smaller fests pay more like the producer’s income)? Or to the brand reps who usually market their wares on Main Street while these producer’s films are bringing in the audiences to Park City? Or to the company execs and their ad agencies placing ads around this content on the rising AVOD platforms? Or to the film school Deans, and their bosses, who keep churning out these creative producing MFA’s?
Those questions could go on and on, but the more important conversations to be had are things like: what kind of art do we want to see? If we want a diverse set of stories and storytellers, don’t we need to make producing more sustainable, and not just the realm of those with wealth, or connections? Could artist service orgs focus on things like setting standards for producer’s fees, and educating investors about the reality of deferred compensation, while still producing those fancy awards shows? Should film schools be teaching students more about how to build sustainable careers by diversifying their income streams?
These are just a few of the questions that came to mind in reading the Dear Producer Sustainability Report. I hope that now that we have some data, maybe we can dispel some of the myths that are out there, which contribute to the problems the report identifies. My worry, however, is that like all good stories, all myths, they will survive… even when the data proves them wrong.
|
|
Film
Telling the Story of the US and Us, Sundance Panel: By far, the most important panel I've ever seen at a film fest was this Sundance panel. Sean Flynn of Camden Film Fest pointed this out to me, and I am so glad he did. From the Sundance description: On January 30, 2021, during The Big Conversation: The Story of Us, legal scholar and civil rights advocate Kimberlé W. Crenshaw moderated a conversation including Bryan Stevenson, founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, and Pulitzer Prize–winning writer Việt Thanh Nguyễn about the construction, dissemination and deployment of the grand narrative of the United States, and the critical role of independent media in its retelling. Watch Here.
What's the Outlook for "Specialty" Film This Year?: Variety interviews a host of smart folks about what they see for the future of arthouse/indie films post Sundance. A range of opinions from great to dire, but most seem to feel "specialty" films will survive but the sector needs some new business models, and as Lela Meadow-Conner, who runs the Film Fest Alliance is quoted, the collaboration model "be it with other film organizations, nonprofits or brands, is going to be the key to supporting smaller films that have a niche subject." Agreed.
Four European Short Film Fests Band Together to Launch This Is Short: More great news on the collaboration-for-the-win front. CineEuropa reports that four well known European Short-Film Fests are banding together to create a jointly run film fest - audiences can access the same content from any one of their portals, and it will also operate as a streaming portal. Having just failed miserably at trying to attend Sundance, Rotterdam and Goteborg (virtually) at the same time, I'm all for more of these collaborations. It especially makes sense for shorts.
Documentary+ Launches - Another day, another SVOD launch, but in spite of the unoriginal name, this one is worth watching. Many people have tried to launch a Doc-only service, but this one has not only great films, but a great price - free. Details from XTR, the producers who launched the channel: "DOCUMENTARY+ is home to the world’s best documentaries – from Academy Award winning classics and box office hits to festival darlings and cult favorites. Nonfiction storytelling at its best, curated by the best. With DOCUMENTARY+ you get:
- Documentaries from the top studios in the world, curated by acclaimed filmmakers.
- Full access to watch anytime, anywhere on your mobile device, tablet, computer, and connected tv.
- Browse or search with ease across the best in music, sports, true crime, history, food, science, nature, fashion, culture, and more.
And best of all: No subscription necessary." You can also read this Deadline article about it.
|
|
Miscellany:
If Voter's Aren't Listening Then What Are We Doing? Preaching to the Converted - A great interview in the CJR with Pat Rynard, the founding editor of the Iowa Starting Line about the impact - or lack of it - of left of center political journalism in these times. As explained in the article, he recently pulled the plug on his political news site, because as he says "“Good journalism should hold the powerful accountable, but it should do so in reality, not just theory, and if voters aren’t listening to it, then what are we doing here?” He also points out the problem with journalism's main business model right now, the paywall:
"I think paywalls are single-handedly eroding our democracy. Even when you get good news out there, it’s locked behind a paywall. That journalism has a limited impact. Obviously, newspaper paywalls are often essential in keeping reporters employed. But these local news outlets need to find a different business model to move away from that. We’ve seen that it’s not working. When you have a big breaking news story, and a couple of ten thousand people can actually read it in a state, how much impact or influence is it gonna have? Not everybody subscribes to their newspaper anymore. There’s been a very clear trend of politicians trying to sow doubt in the credibility of mainstream news. People are just finding their news wherever they can find it for free."
I think this is a hugely important story for us to all consider, especially as we enter the next four years, where T-man ain't going away, and his followers aren't listening to real news. It's also true for film - what impact are you having with your social impact film, if the audience that needs the message isn't watching? Lots to unpack and think about here.
|
|
|
Like This Newsletter? Subscribe & Past Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
