It's time for brands to start collaborating around content, specifically - it's time for them to collaborate to fund, market and distribute films for social impact. I've been preaching this for awhile now, but to my knowledge, it has only happened once (more on that below). They also need to be collaborating with foundations and other traditional funders and supporters of social change films. Again, something I've been preaching, but it has become imperative during these times.
This has become most pressing because of the recent Black Lives Matter protests, and the degree to which they've finally opened up so many people's eyes to the issues we have in the US and the world around diversity, discrimination, inequity, and so much more. But it's also been made more apparent by the Covid-19 crisis, which has both exposed so many similar issues and made them worse. Brands have been pretending to address the social issues facing our society for a long time, and have signed pledges, and have said they're taking action. But as we've seen in so many areas - it takes a community to make change. These crises are too big for any one person or brand to tackle. Sure, Patagonia can bring attention to environmental issues, and Greta Thunberg has been an inspiration, but if we want real change, and to have a real impact, we need more collaboration.
But there are multiple other, yet related, reasons for brands to collaborate. First, we've seen that years of cuts to government, and an alarming move to many more autocratic leaders have led to a complete failure of government. New Zealand is an exception, but in the US, we've now fulfilled Grover Norquist's goal to reduce government to where it can be drowned in a bathtub. I am no fan of letting corporations take the role of government, and think it's a travesty, but here we are (I am left of Marx, politically, but also a realist). In the US, Britain, Brazil, and so many other places, austerity has led to a situation where we have to rely on corporations, foundations and a few rich people's funding for any progress. I'm down for blowing it up and building something better, but for now - we need corporations to take the lead.
Luckily, that's what consumers want too - multiple surveys have shown that consumers - that's another word for people - want brands to take a stand on important social issues. And guess what they don't want - half-assed efforts, or more interruptive ads that all look the same, extolling workers while they screw them, not-even-behind-the-scenes. Brands can fulfill this mission in multiple ways - diversifying, treating employees better, paying a living wage, working on policy, etc. But another way they can do this is by using film to bring people's attention to issues and urge them towards action. Culture matters. That's why Republicans cut it all the time, because they know it makes a difference.
Third - traditional advertising doesn't work, and marketing budgets are being cut, so brands can get more bang per buck by working with others to increase overall budgets and have greater impact for less investment. Yes, this idea sounds crazy - why would Coke and Pepsi work together? Well, those two probably won't, but let's look at it another way (#4). Brands work together all the time to influence public opinion and policy - it's called lobbying. But usually it's used to lobby against something - a movement to stop brands from doing something, or to stop government regulation. Sure, there's good lobbying too - such as when outdoor brands started working together to fight for public lands. Or more recently when many brands are joining to boycott Facebook advertising in July. But if we look at why they work together - realizing they have more power, and more likelihood of having real impact by collaborating - then we can see why they should come together to have greater impact through film.
 Plus, this has been done before. I'm not talking about films where the filmmaker happened to attract multiple sponsors, either, as that's not coordinated in the same way. As I've written, a huge number of brands in Finland came together to fund and market the film, The Unknown Soldier. You can read my article to see the full extent, but over 26 brands came together to help fund and market this film about Finland's history for its 100th anniversary (that's a few of the partners in the photo at the top of this article, and an AR milk carton promotion here). Without any product placement (it was an historical film). So it can be done again. They mobilized an entire country, and the film became the highest grossing film in Finland's history (yes, above Avatar).
That's also the most important reason to collaborate - to amplify a message and have greater impact, which can be done more easily and effectively by the combined marketing prowess of multiple companies pushing the same film - and issues - at the same time. Sure, it might lead to greater box office, but it will definitely lead to more impressions, more earned media, and likely more actual action taking place, because audiences (consumers) will be more likely to hear about an issue and take action to have an impact when they hear about it from multiple brands they trust.
 Trust is the important word here, of course, and I am quite sure the majority of my readers (even those who work for brands) are quite skeptical of the idea of trusting brands to really care about making a difference as opposed to just selling products. I am not suggesting that anyone should go into this without a healthy dose of such skepticism and without their bullshit meters finely calibrated. That's precisely why I helped found the Brand Foundation Alliance, and why I think foundations and traditional funders of impact media should be involved and collaborate as well. Because they can bring best practices, and help establish trust. Yes, they should be keenly aware of not becoming a cover for bad behavior. But with proper collaboration and leadership from this sector, these collaborations can be "kept honest" while again leading to more impact. They can be most useful in helping to find the best projects and artists for support, and for helping to fund and guide evaluation efforts to judge whether this all works, and has impact.
What matters most is how they collaborate, and I am 100% advocating for an embrace of the Executive Producer finance model, alongside robust joint-marketing efforts. We need to move away from the idea of "branded content" and towards a model where brands are financiers, partners, enablers and advocates for quality films - that might get made anyway, and that originate not from within the brand, but that align with the brand's mission and values, and that have a chance at impact. This is what I've advocated for with many clients, and a few have taken this approach (I won't name them here). There's a time and place for brand-initiated films and/or branded content, but for impact, brands should be supporting filmmakers who are on the ground and in touch with the activists and telling the right stories, already. They should be attending markets and getting to know filmmakers and they should become credited EP's who both finance and market the films. Sometimes as a grant, but often as equity investors, who will be more incentivized to promote these films because they might profit from their marketing prowess - all while having an impact.
But funding is not the main goal here. I've always told filmmakers that their smartest pitch would be to not even ask for money, but for marketing only. Of course, filmmakers always need money and ask, but the value a brand can best bring is its marketing expertise. Because I've also always said - indie film has figured out everything except marketing, and that's what brands know best. And the power of joint-marketing timed to a release and impact campaign can be worth millions and truly make change happen.
Smart brands will take this one step further and partner with distributors, broadcasters and VOD platforms (of all types) earlier in the process to better ensure distribution. And those partners would be smart to start taking more of these meetings. Netflix doesn't need money (yet), but they do need help breaking through the noise. I've set up some of these deals already, but it's a shame that more of them aren't actively pursuing this model.
That said - if enough brands collaborate on a project, they can even skip the system entirely and bring the film to people based on their marketing prowess and use online platforms (like Vimeo and YouTube) and when we can safely return to theaters, use service deals to get flms to the masses in person as well. A well funded, well marketed film by a multitude of brands doesn't need festivals or other gatekeepers at all.
We have many pressing issues to address - most urgently are those brought forward by Black Lives Matter and the BIPOC communities. But these issues often overlap with many of the others, such as environmental issues and climate catastrophe, the public lands (and public spaces) battles, election reform, inclusion and equity and so many more things. I could re-fill this page just with the things Trump has set on fire, and that doesn't address the global issues. It's time that corporations, especially those truly trusted brands who have good people fighting the good fight, join together to help fund and market the films that can help build movements and make change. It's only one piece of the puzzle, but it's such an easy one to tackle. I'm pledging here to use my contacts to further this cause, and hope to annouce some projects soon, but I call on all of my brand (and foundation) colleagues to come together and forge new alliances and force some change - now.
|
|
From the mind-blown department. I got an email newsletter yesterday from Demspey Rice, a filmmaker friend who is making a movie called The Animated Mind of Oliver Sacks, who posted this memory about forgetting from him:
So many things get forgotten. One forgets the Depression and one forgets wars and people forget the fact that there was this enormous worldwide epidemic. Maybe 5 million people were affected between 1915 and about 1927 with the sleepy sickness or sleeping sickness. It was different from the flu. There was a big flu epidemic in 1918, but this was different. People were affected all over the world. About a third of them died and many of them appeared to to recover completely, but then later, they got, they fell into strange states. Sometimes there was some Parkinsonism. Sometimes there was a strange trancelike state. All over the world, hospitals were opened for patients like this or turned over to them. This is so forgotten that when I was a medical student and a resident, I'd hardly heard of it or I thought it was some minor thing which had once occurred and was of no great significance and hadn't left any residue. And 1966, when I went to a hospital and encountered 80 patients, some of whom had been there for- for 45 years, who were absolutely motionless, like- like statues, like living statues, this. It suddenly hit me that there'd been a most extraordinary thing which had been forgotten. The patients had been forgotten. The epidemic had been forgotten. And that sort of started me on the long odyssey which became "Awakenings."
WTF??!!! We've forgotten the most terrifying disease I've (n)ever heard of? I am staying with two epidemiologists right now - my wife and a bubble-couple friend - and neither knew about this. So my wife emails an epidemiological historian friend (something that only happens in my house), and in a matrix moment, he emails that just that same day. The Lancet ran an article about the overlaps between the weird neurological things we're seeing with covid and the old encephalitis lethargica outbreak (links to PDF). If you don't have time to read it - 5 milllion people were infected and 1.5M died - and many people ended up in weird catatonic states that they never came out of - which contributed to Sack's writing of Awakenings. And there's a good chance it was tied to the 1918 flu - which we've also practically forgotten - and it happened on a smaller scale many times before and after the "pandemic" phase.
So there's a chance this could actually make zombies. My mind is blown. Not that anyone needs anything else to worrry about here, but someone should make a movie about this, stat.
|
|
Film
We Need Documentarians of Color to Tell Their Own Stories -Another must-read Opinion Piece, this time from Miasarah Lai i Hyperallergic - "Solidarity and social change require consistent engagement and, more importantly, putting marginalized people in positions of power. People occupying all levels of the documentary field need to educate themselves, listen, and give funding, resources, and access to BIPOC filmmakers. There’s no one way to do this; strategies can include compensating BIPOC fair market rates, providing them with free or discounted services, speaking up wherever there’s a lack of diversity, and in general simply refusing to accept things as they are now. As Angela Davis said in 1972: “It is not enough to be not racist, you must actively be anti-racist.”"
Drive-in cinemas here to stay, suggests Neon executive - Not only that, but Distributors discover that email addresses work on a virtual panel reported on by Screen, Jeff Deutchman said the nicest surprise of virtual cinemas was the direct connection to audiences. Welcome to today’s world.
Are there too many Ad-Supported Streaming Services - Motley Fool reports on the proliferation of AVOD and the sea of content fighting for our attention.
Streaming Services are missing this feature if they want to dominate the pandemic era - that feature being able to watch together while being physically distant. CNN covers. Once again, we need more participatory film experiences - it isn't just about making the next TikTok, but also allowing people to participate with more traditional content - come on people, we've known this for over a decade.
Georgia Film Tax Credit Could Be Capped Amid Fiscal Crisis - From Variety. As I've been predicting, as states cut budgets due to Covid, we're gonna see a lot of these tax credits disappearing, and it ain't gonna be pretty.
|
|
Branded Content
HP Launched a Short Film About How we Teach Now: On their platform, The Garage. It's part of a new series called "How We Work Now" and this one is about distance learning. It's all done in Zoom, but remains creative and interesting. Check it out here.
Hulu Vows to Push Streaming Fans to Off-Screen Ads - Variety covers how Hulu is moving away from traditional ads and finding more innovative ways to push their branded partners. About time.
Patrick Milling-Smith, co-founder and CEO of SMUGGLER and Greg Shapiro, Academy Award-winning producer of The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, recently got together with shots to have a conversation about the future of advertising, entertainment and the intersection of the two worlds.
|
|
Miscellany:
How Intelligent is your AI? - is your system just an algorithm (a set of rules to be followed to solve a problem) or does the system actually learn and act based on gain knowledge. MIT Sloan Management Review makes the distinction and why its important to not go after the buzz word, but to look for the simplest solution.
As Black creators gain sudden exposure on TikTok and Instagram, social media platforms begin to acknowledge inherent biases - finally acknowledging that its not enough to create an algorithm that just shows a user "what they want" when the default in American society is white culture. A step in the right direction, but we need to keep in pushing.
|
|
|
Like This Newsletter? Subscribe & Past Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
