choosing huge, bold
<a<br>href=”http://www.handbagsprada.us/“>Goyard
Handbags print, bright colors as well as a
captivating message.<a<br>href=”http://www.replicawatches2uk.c...“>Replica
Aigner watches Laptop computer messenger bags Givenchy
handbagscome in lots of different styles. There is laptop
computer backpacks, <a<br>href=”http://www.handbagshermes.us/m...“>Marni
handbags laptop computer briefcases, & lots of more. You
can get any of them that match you style & fashion for better travel
conveniences. Men love to wear the <a<br>href=”http://www.replica–watches.co...“>Replica
Watches  and <a<br>href=”http://www.replica–watches.co...“>Patek
Philippe watches   is one of the most replicated watch brands
worldwide, behind only <a<br>href=”http://www.breitling-watches.c...“>Breitling
watches uk

 and Panerai. Omega watches tag
heuer watches are popular, and hence there is
a large range of Patek Philippe Omega replica watches available. These watches
range from poor Chinese copies to the latest high-end Swiss ETA replicas with
all the bells and whistles. <a<br>href=”http://www.rolex-replicawatche...“>Rolex
Replica Watches

</a<br></a<br></a<br></a<br></a<br></a<br></a<br></a<br></a<br>

The attitudes, however, I find nauseating more and more often. Like the comment about people making films to get their voice out being the problem.

Depends entirely on what they’re saying, or not.

The inverse position, that filmmaker’s voices are irrelevant, and only selling counts, that’s like end-times logic. Why even bother?

I don’t want to see films that pander to demographics.

I don’t want to see films by “generation y’ers” for gen y’ers. Or is it z now?

Most of this dreck is banal and undeserving of my time. Filmmakers with nothing to say is the problem. There’s thousands of them. They have no perspective, no historical knowledge, no sociological knowledge, no library to draw on whatsoever. They’re kids tapping about nothing and pretending it’s important.

There needs to be better weeding out, I’m sure. But perhaps not by the criteria that others here use to gauge it.

I agree. That mindset that straight to video is bad should change, but you can’t overlook something that’s very important about that which is that it provides a type of curation and a perception of value/actual value for a film. The curation of distributors and exhibitors, however cruel and unfair and without merit, helps create the value that people are willing to pay for – in the theaters. You can rally against this all you want, but there needs to be some sorting out from the masses of films produced.

Video has always had a few gems, and the situation is changing, but it hasn’t changed. Something has to replace it. I’ve always hoped that the NYT would put out a section like their Book Review that reviewed DVDs, or films that missed out on theaters, but that doesn’t look likely now that they’re going bankrupt. It’s pretty clear that audiences are being ignored.

The fact is that getting into theaters is tough because if it was easy, it would be a less valuable commodity. And that’s part of the problem with VOD: anyone can get it.

Simply put, I don’t see VOD as anything other than distribution technology. However, it’s a tool that unlike previous distribution systems, can be used cost-effectively by filmmakers who want to reach out directly to their prospective audiences. As a filmmaker, you can tackle it on your own. And a few filmmakers do seem to have a flair for self-promotion. But I suspect that the vast majority of independent filmmakers would rather seek professional assistance. It seems apparent that an entire new class of business will emerge to offer value at this new link in the chain. I think this is where the Tribeca initiative comes in. Will it succeed? Who knows? But it is an experiment. And given the unsettled state of independent film, I think we should applaud organizations like Tribeca who are willing to fund these kinds of experiments. On this note, I’m not inclined to jump on the “Failed!” bandwagon that surrounds the YouTube-Sundance experiment. The five films included in that program dominated the YouTube landing page for several days. What was the cost to YouTube to do that? $40K, $50K each day in lost revenue? Granted, this experiment might well be entirely self-serving on YouTube’s part. But those five films certainly benefited at the expense of an experiment conducted on someone else’s dime.

The point is that we need these kinds of experiments. Having been in the Silicon Valley for the past 15 years, it’s apparent that some of the most storied companies became successes despite early rejection (Google’s two founders were famously rejected by one of the area’s angel funds). The willingness to experiment is what enables the Silicon Valley to thrive. Most companies that start here fail. But more than a few of these failures contribute directly to the success of other firms operating along similar lines. The following one correcting a former’s mistake. Or simply a beneficiary of better timing. What Tribeca is doing, and what YouTube did recently with Sundance, they strike me as wonderful things.

We know that the business has changed. We can see the negative effects. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have a clear picture of a new, improved industry where independents might thrive. However, we should be encouraged when we see YouTube experimenting with independent film. Smart people and economic cost being applied to professionally produced content. That’s great news. The Tribeca initiative, good news too. How do film festivals remain relevant in the Internet age? I won’t be in New York in April. Must I therefore be excluded from the experience, the excitement? If Tribeca provides me with a way to enjoy one or more of the festival’s films remotely and during the actual festival, I’d like that. If I like the film, I might even buy/order the DVD too, since I have not yet disconnected from that habit.

Technological innovation can be disrespectful, even harmful, to the business and livelihoods of content creators. But it’s the application of technology that makes the difference in the long run. These experiments should be welcome. The bottom line is that these experiments can only succeed if they actually help the filmmakers who participate in them. With luck, they’ll tell us about their experiences. A little more light, a few more clues, helps move the process along.

The other thing is that excitement to see something has to build, doesn’t it? If I read about something at Tribeca, and then I turn on my TV and see it, it lacks any build up at all. I don’t think there is anything wrong with your film not being available everywhere right away. Sure, eventually that’s what you want, but doesn’t word of mouth go something like this (with VOD scenario added below):

me: I heard about that new Ted Hope film.

you: yeah, that sounds good. I want to see that.

me: let’s go, next week when it opens. I’m psyched.

(you: oh, it’s out on TV already.

me: oh, then it must have sucked.)

1) What is the most successful on-line VOD film of all time? How about the most successful indie VOD film? Anyone know how much money it made? What’s the average?

2) What are the demographics/cultural leanings of people that purchase on-line VOD? I don’t know a single person that buys and watches on-line VOD movies, other than a few people that have purchased a few movies from iTunes. Are the people purchasing on-line VOD even interested in independent films or do they only want star-driven, youth oriented, blockbusters?

3) Who are the market leaders in on-line VOD distribution? What site/company is everyone going to to get their on-line VOD from, and why?

There have been some comments posted above by people in (or getting into) the on-line distribution field, what are the answers to these questions?

1) Availability.

2) Awareness.

You have to be easily available to your potential customers.

Your potential customers need to know you exist.

That’s it. Period.

The days of talking “at” an audience are over- you to have a conversation with them. You can’t tell people they’ll like something and expect they’ll want to see it. You have to engage and bring them into your circle- or, bring yourself into theirs. This is more work than placing $45,000 worth of print advertising and crossing your fingers that your film opens well enough to get out of the NY/LA first stage platform release. But it’s worthwhile and cost effective- and it works.

This is a good thing, if you’re playing on the right scale. If you’ve made a $4 million film and you need that $5 million check from Fox Searchlight to break even- then you’ve got your work cut out for you, and we wish you luck. Like Matt Lester said above, you’re going to get stuck with “screaming” at your audience and hoping to heard above the din. And odds are, it won’t work. But if you’ve played it smart, kept costs in line, the days of it costing $100k+ to have a wide theatrical platform release are done.

If you have a built-in audience, you’re off to a good start. If you don’t, stop reading this and go start building one. There are lots of resources on the web that will help you (Ted’s blogs most certainly included, so maybe you shouldn’t stop reading this!).

In the end, if it gets deserving films seen, we’re cheering on Tribeca’s VOD arrangement. These are smart people, and I am sure they have a plan to make noise on the consumer end beyond attaching their name to it. But we’ve been down this road, and that noise needs to be augmented by something more real and grounded- we believe best by a theatrical experience component, regardless of when in the window it happens. But at minimum, by taking each film ONE BY ONE (not as a “group”- nobody cares about the branding of a film besides industry folks and some die hard fans) and finding what is special and unique about it, and taking that and figuring out a way to engage with the audience that is waiting for it but just doesn’t know it yet. That’s more than a formula for success that works across any platform- that’s a formula that if not executed, is a nearly sure-fire failure.

What do I mean??? The most valuable asset Amazon, iTunes, and Netflix have is the ability to track the viewing habits and interests of the consumer. But as middlemen, they actively with hold this information. Without this information, independent marketing strategies are essentially still operating in a scattershot, beta format.

While the idea of a media launch is great, it is not particularly new… we are just using new technologies to execute old ideas. This is still a game that can be dominated big companies with more money or man power. What we need to do is create a new GAME.

In a marketplace that is crowded with noise, studios and major media companies have simply adopted the policy of trying to scream louder than the next guy (read: more money, more placement, etc.). To truly cut through the noise, filmmakers need to find consumers that who are already interested in what they have to say and speak to them directly. This can ONLY be done through gaining access to information.

The Tribeca VOD deal will fail unless they can create a community around the service where users can connect and share information. (VOD is obviously not the best suited for this, but hey anything is possible…)