It’s become apparent that the film festival (conference/market) industry is facing its Zoom (neé Napster) moment, and those festivals that don’t quickly confront the profound changes ahead will soon be replaced by others who embrace the new realities. This is not about switching to an online or hybrid format – that’s the easy part, and just about everyone has made that shift, but about fundamental changes to the industry that few seem prepared to make. Those who do address these changes are poised to thrive, but based on what we’ve learned from Napster, it’s likely to get messy before it gets better.
Film festivals, markets and conferences have been making the shift to online formats, and few (if any) are debating whether they’ll remain hybrid events in the future, as most are deciding this trend is here to stay. But while I give them kudos for making this shift as quickly as possible, I fear too few are realizing the gravity of the changes they’re facing. Covid-19 and the attendant shifts to digital it’s brought are monumental.
As Rafat Ali recently wrote in a Skift article, the entire events industry is facing its Napster moment (I highly recommend this article, and it informs my thinking here). The disruption Covid and our rapid shift to digital events has brought to the industry is not unlike those brought upon music by Napster. And like Napster, where we went through years of disruption and revenue loss before settling into some semblance of a new business via Spotify, we’re just at the Zoom moment of live events now – and we have a long way to go, and many destroyed business models, and dead festivals/markets/events before we settle into the new reality. (For context, remember that Napster was founded in 1999; Spotify, while founded in 2006, came to the world after 2008 and really hit its stride much later, and Apple Music didn’t come around until 2015. FWIW, Napster was just bought again in late August.)
I was on a (closed) panel a few weeks ago, where 30+ film industry leaders from around the world, including many top festival leaders, discussed the future of festivals, and everyone agreed – the current model has been a band-aid that kinda sucks, and that we’ve been too focused on “retaining the old models” rather than “reimagining the new ones.” Mind you, these were festival and industry professionals, many of whom have run or will soon be running “virtual” events, and no one disagreed. What was even more amazing was that most of the attendees admitted to mainly participating in online meetings, panels and pitch sessions, but skipping the screenings. Not many people were excited by the current formats for what should be the main event of any film festival – watching films. Yes, we’d all “give it a go” at the (recently wrapped) Toronto Film Festival, but the experience of watching films at a festival is not only lacking compared to an IRL fest, but is also poor compared to almost any other in-home film viewing experience.
When I mentioned that I felt we were in our “napster moment,” many agreed, but a few optimistically pointed out that this is a good thing – if we can recognize this and work together, we can perhaps create the future we’d rather see. I agree, and hope we can build that future together, and soon, but wearing my “painfully honest” hat - history shows that few incumbents survive these transitions and its more likely that new entrants will be the leaders of this new future. Five years from now, Cannes will most likely still exist, if only because people like the French Riviera and the fest will continue to get government subsidies. But I’m willing to bet that most audiences, and most industry, will be much more focused on some new entrant to the space – someone who doesn’t exist now, but who will become the dominant film discovery, discussion and news-making event - it could be a new consortium of fests (like NightStream); or a festival untethered by industry politics, who can break the rules and become something new (like Blackstar or Slamdance); or (most likely) something launched by a brand, with deep pockets, consumer loyalty and a need to connect in new ways (imagine a Nike Sports Film Fest day/date across the globe). The current dominant players (yes, Toronto, Berlin, IDFA, Sundance, Venice, Telluride, etc.) could end up as afterthoughts and shoulda-beens in the hierarchy of film events.
I realize this seems like crazy talk but bear with me. Most top tier festivals take place in destination locales because people like to gather and do business in these locations. Those things don’t matter so much online. Great regional festivals thrive because they’ve always curated great films for their local audience, helping them discover films they wouldn’t normally get to see, or bringing that next Oscar contender to town early – and crucially, letting you show off your access to your friends and business colleagues by having great seats. Again, online, not so much. Most festivals (big and small) survive on a mix of tickets, sponsorships, memberships, subsidy and other fees. Each of these revenue streams is based on a value proposition. Members pay to get better seats or early access to tickets, and to support the organization’s mission. Sponsors pay to get their brand in front of the right consumer, at a special event, often in a desirable locale (or with celebrities in the photos). Industry pay to conduct business surrounded by a great location, and to have chance meetings that further their careers. Filmmakers attend a panel to learn about the industry, or an audience member does so to learn about a subject. All of these things will continue once again on the other side of Covid. But they’ve all, also been disrupted, and the value proposition for each aspect has been shown to be precarious.
Why pay for a membership when you can spend less for a Netflix subscription and see more films, with a better user interface? Why sponsor a festival for millions, when you can sponsor a screening for pennies on the dollar, and get just as many attendees. Why buy that festival badge when you may see a new film or sell one, but it hasn’t added any value to your experience from the networking and serendipitous meetings? Do we need to send ten executives across the Atlantic to attend that festival when one of us can get as much done in our pajamas? Is this ticket worth $20 when I’m essentially getting the same thing I could get for $4.99 on iTunes, again, with a better user experience? Why am I paying to watch this Zoom panel from TIFF when the same panelists are on a free Zoom panel being hosted by numerous other promoters next week? If everyone is just using Zoom (or its equivalent) anyways, why buy a conference badge, versus attending some other free online event? If I watch a film premiere online and none of my friends tweet about it, did it premiere at all? Do I become a high-level member if I no longer get to bring some business clients and introduce them to a movie star at the after-party? If I’m a horror fan, should I spend my money on the Atlanta Film Fest and see maybe 3-4 midnight films, or should I spend it on the NightStream Festival, where five great genre-festivals are programming the line-up and my odds of a good time are vastly improved? And if I do the latter, is there a better chance of having a great conversation with my genre film buddies online – connected across time zones and not geo-blocked – than at the local fest where I may not know the other few (online, disconnected) local viewers?
I could go on, but I think you get the point(s). In an online, Zoom-ed world, all of these things can be set up easily and cheaply. The established players are resting on their laurels (literally, as that’s part of their brand), and their reputations, but few festivals have built their brand outside of the industry, or beyond their immediate communities. There are a few notable exceptions – being generous, I would count Blackstar, Fantastic Fest, Frameline (and maybe Outfest), Full Frame, Hot Docs, MountainFilm, Overlook (for genre, and just partnered with the aforementioned NightStream), Slamdance, Sundance, SXSW, Tribeca, and True/False as being among the “brand-names” in North America. But how many non-cinephiles know when Sundance takes place? What does the Tribeca brand “mean” anymore? How many techies have gone to Austin for a decade and don’t realize it has a film fest? Do these brands mean much in an online world? And can they survive the poor experience they’re offering online? I am exaggerating, as I’m sure that with smart leadership these brands can survive, but the questions become – alongside whom? And who thrives?
Taking part in the Toronto Film Fest online this week – and I am a fan of this festival; it’s one of my three favorites in the world – I can tell you that nothing about the experience was special enough that someone else couldn’t come along and make something better, likely for cheaper, by next year. The films were pretty good, but no better than any other festival’s selection, and their “curation” still allowed in plenty of stinkers and films accepted purely for political reasons (Canadian filmmaker representation being chief among these faults). The visual presentation – the website, apps, film guide, curatorial system to help me navigate films and the quality of the streams were sub-par to put it gently. The panels were not any more informative than any other film offerings, and none of the speakers were very exclusive (or saying much that they haven’t said within the past two weeks on some other panel). The official networking – via Cinando essentially – was no better than what you could do anywhere else or at any other time. The non-official networking was, well, nonexistent. The online chatter wasn’t much more prevalent. The NYT's film critics tied themselves in knots trying not to say the experience sucked. This is not to knock the festival organizers, really, as they were trying their best to put on a show under a lot of strain, and they aren’t alone in facing this moment. But best efforts won’t be enough going forward, once competitors awaken.
So how does the film fest industry survive and thrive? Or if you want to disrupt it, what should you be keeping in mind? Well, Rafat Ali’s (Skift article mentoned above) recommendation for incumbents is good for fest organizers as well – “Lots of experimentation and openness to failing a lot would be key to success for current incumbents.” That’s good general advice, because the reality is – no one knows what’s going to work (yet). I also gave a lot of ideas for moving forward back in April, here.
I’ve wrestled with how to address steps forward for a few days now, in writing this, but I think I’d sum up all of the changes needed in one saying – it’s time to bring your A game. Ironically, in a digital world, where “just good enough” is good enough to unseat an incumbent, it also means that just good enough doesn’t cut it anymore. Paradoxical, I know. But when anyone can put on a great Zoom panel, or curate a selection of films, no one stands out unless they excel at every aspect of the event business. Just good enough can topple a giant, but it can’t become the next one. It’s no longer good enough to curate 50 films – you also need to curate my path to discovering them better – via better apps, a better website, a better user experience, and through participatory social media – meaning your programmers need to engage audiences in actual conversation. It’s not good enough to have a poorly moderated panel with the same speakers everyone else is having – we need exclusivity and new formats. It’s not good enough to throw a sponsor logo on your “support” page, or on a title card at the front of a program (which anyone can fast forward past), we’re going to need entirely new ways to activate sponsorships that are more meaningful and robust. A pre-recorded Q&A or a glitchy Zoom intro is not good enough anymore; again, we need to embrace participatory culture and spark dialogue between artists and audiences. The systems we’re using to present films aren’t good enough – none of the online festival delivery systems (Eventive, Shift72, etc.) have built a solid user experience – there are glitches, poor navigation, constant log-in/out issues – and in a Netflix era, we are back to where festival systems are less navigable than pirate sites.
In short, our shift to the digital world needs to mature, quickly, and to make this even more difficult – these changes must come at a time when we’re all struggling just to keep the doors open due to a global pandemic that seems destined to make things harder going forward, not easier. Yikes. But as tough as that sounds, it’s also an opportunity – to throw away legacy models and build something better. As I’ve said before, the old models weren’t working so great anyways, so we should look at this as a once in a lifetime (let’s hope) opportunity to burn it all down and build something better. As I was finishing this post, I got a call from my friend Diana Williams (of MWM) who said to me about this moment: “It’s no longer survival of the fittest, but survival of the most adaptable. We can’t bemoan the past, we can only adapt and move forward.” Agreed – and in film festival land, that means adapting to these changes before you get Zoomed!
|
|
|
|
Response rates are super low across the country, especially in NYC. If you live in the US, please take the time and fill out the census forms. You can do that here.
|
|
Film
 Festival Forward Panel - I’m excited to join Ghetto Film School Roster’s panel “Festival Forward: Beyond 2021”, with other leaders in the film festival circuit providing insight on how Film Festivals are progressing forward in a virtual environment, and what that means for filmmakers. Join the conversation on September 29th at 5pm EST/2pm PST and RSVP here
IDA's Getting Real (Doc) Conference is next week, and online for free (or plus donation). And the schedule was just announced. My pick for must see - filmmaker Maria Aqui Cater's keynote, Magical Realism and Other Subversions - "When we are fighting a pandemic and on the brink of environmental cataclysm and we can’t breathe and our children are locked in cages, what is our responsibility as artists? An American immigrant writer and director shares her journey and dreams of what media could be."
How are the NYC Local Arthouses Holding Up?: They're getting creative, but on shaky ground and have no (government) leadership on next directions, according to an IFP Week panel as reported on in Filmmaker Magazine. As we all know, some are going virtual, some are doing drive-ins, but all are worried about opening and having to just close once again. Quite a mess, but it's good to hear what's been working for them as well.
Quibi's For Sale - No one saw that coming. Oh wait, I predicted that back in Oct, 2018 and explained why in detail in Dec of 2018 - because they were solving a problem no one had. You could not make a movie about screwing up the launch of a (vertical) movie company and make it any crazier than the Quibi story. Oh, except the movie about whoever buys them and spends ten more years figuring out that they can't make it work. Or the one based on Katzenberg's spin about how coronavirus, not lack of vision or leadership, killed it. Or the one...
UniFrance Looks at Covid and the Industry - UniFrance hosted a series of panels about covid, it's impact on film and a bunch of other stuff. They have a dozen videos online - I haven't found time to watch those, but bet they're informative. And a report should be coming soon, but they reported on the report here. Apparently, "Yet the lockdown came far too quickly for a strategic response, and nothing truly game-changing emerged in terms of technology or business models. Instead the crisis exposed, accentuated and accelerated existing trends – and that makes it far more significant." Sounds about right to me.
|
|
Branded Content
Dear Companies, Work Together on Anti-Racism - That's the message from Laura Swapp on Medium. She's not discussing branded content, although they could do that too, but I think it is worth reading in that context. She's specifically pointing out that every company is addressing diversity, racism, racial inclusion and how to react to and impact the current crisis, but too few are joining forces to make an impact - which would of course, lead to greater impact. I agree. (h/t to Paolo Mottola of REI who shared this on LinkedIn, where I found it).
|
|
Miscellany:
RIP RBG - Friday night's news took my breath away. I was texting with my wife as we both received the news, and... well, you know how it feels. There's nothing I can say that someone hasn't said better somewhere else, but I feel like I can't send this newsletter without acknowledging the loss - she was one of the great ones. If you haven't already seen it, go watch the RBG documentary now.
What's Next for LiveStreamming Music? That's what Water & Music explores in this excellent post, which I think applies to film and the events business (per my musings above) as well. Hint, it all boils down to some combo of: "The most engaging and impactful music livestreaming initiatives I’ve seen so far draw from the trifecta of high production quality, close intimacy or proximity with artists and fans and/or frequent and consistent output.
|
|
|
Like This Newsletter? Subscribe & Past Issues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
