May 27 at 12:24pm

Jon Reiss on Proper Prior Planning Prevent Perplexing Problems

Today’s guest post is from filmmaker / hybrid DIY distro guru, Jon Reiss.

Over the last several months an argument has arisen within the independent film community as to how much (and whether) filmmakers should focus on the distribution and marketing of their films.

I am rather surprised that there is an argument.  I am very surprised that lines have been drawn in the sand, armies joined and deployed.  I feel that the discussion to date misses two very important points.  First – there is no one kind of independent filmmaker.  There is no one kind of filmmaker.  Never has, never will be.  Thank god.  Each person who is involved in independent film has his or her own desires, interests, passions, loves, hates.  Each filmmaker has different motivations for making a film.  Some want to make a statement, change the world – whether it is social or artistic.  Some want to make money.   Some want to express an idea or emotion to as many people as possible.  Most filmmakers want it all.   However if push comes to shove, filmmakers will prioritize what they want from their films.  And these desires are different for different filmmakers.

Similarly not everyone in independent film wants to be a director, or a writer-director, or a writer-producer-director.   Some filmmakers just want to direct and prefer to collaborate with scriptwriters and producers.  Some filmmakers don’t want to direct, but want to be producers, DPs, editors etc.

Second, the debate implies that directors or multi hyphenate writer-director-producers should be primarily responsible for these new tasks.   I will always be among those that directors should not be solely charged with the distribution and marketing of their films.  As a filmmaker, I know how incredibly difficult this is (especially while making a film) – Frankly one of the reasons this blog post is perhaps a bit late to the debate is that I have been involved with shooting Bomb It 2.

However, I do believe that distribution and marketing should be woven into the filmmaking process just as preproduction planning, casting, scriptwriting, editing, sound mixing are all a part of the filmmaking process.  Just as you don’t consider the sound for your film when you are about to mix or even when you are editing dialogue.  If good sound is important to you as a filmmaker, usually you are considering the sound for your film no later than the tech scout, and often from the script stage. Similarly I feel that filmmakers will be helped both logistically and creatively to incorporate distribution and marketing into the entire process of making their films.

It should be understood by our community that distribution and marketing are not about tailoring your film to an audience that you feel you can capitalize on (however if the sole goal for your film is to make money – perhaps this might be a path for you).

A better way to view this process is that distribution and marketing are about finding the audience that already exists for your film, your vision.  (I credit Marc Rosenbush with this keen perspective).

This process of audience engagement takes either a lot of money or a lot of time.  Most independents do not have much of the former, and so must rely on the latter.   It also takes knowledge.

Knowledge can either be learned through experience or through education or a combination.

A year ago, I felt compelled to write a book about distribution and marketing for my fellow filmmakers as a guidebook to this process.  I did this  so that they could learn from my experience and the experiences of others and so that they wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel each time anew.  (How awful would it be that every time we shot a film we had to relearn how different lenses, different lighting, different editing affected the emotional quality of a scene).  It is time to compile our knowledge and share it with each other so that each new filmmaker does not have to waste his or her time to relearn tools and techniques that have been tried by others before them.

I have begun a number of other educational initiatives to which I will devote most of the next twelve months.

I do this not to load more work onto the backs of my fellow filmmakers.  The work frankly exists even if you are one of the lucky few to have a distributor swoop down with a check to relieve you of this burden.

I do this for five reasons:

1. To provide a systematic way to train a new cadre of crew people to be responsible for the distribution and marketing tasks on a film.  I call these new crew people Producers of Marketing and Distribution.

I gave this crew position a name because only with a proper name will the work be recognized, rewarded and most importantly trained for.

Few directors want to do every job on their films.  Many don’t want to be multi-hyphenates.  They are happy to find a brilliant script to bring to the screen.  They are happy to work with a brilliant DP or Production Designer.  They are happy to collaborate with a creative producer who will help them realize their vision.   God knows I am.

Just as filmmakers are eager to collaborate on what has been previously thought of as the work of film, directors and producers should be eager to collaborate with additional crew people who will carry out the numerous tasks of distribution and marketing.

I hope by the time I make my next project, I can put out a call for a Producer of Marketing and Distribution on Shooting People, or Mandy and I will receive a flood of emails.   I hope this for all filmmakers.

In order to create these new crew people, we must provide a way to educate them. Toward this end, I am now working with film organizations around the world to create a variety of educational opportunities to teach this material in the form of classes, labs and workshops.  I am also in the process of creating an online tools website so that filmmakers can share information about distributors, screening networks and the like (kind of a marketing and distribution yelp for filmmakers).  This website will eventually grow into an online academy to teach these tools to filmmakers (especially to create a cadre of PMDs for filmmakers).

I applaud the others who are engaged in this teaching – Peter Broderick, Lance Weiler, Ted Hope, Scott Macaulay, Sheri Candler, Scott Kirsner, Tiffany Shlain, Marc Rosenbush, Thomas Mai, Sandy Dubowsky, Caitlin Boyle, Stacey Parks, IFP, FIND etc.  We should embrace this education as a community – not eschew it.  (I do agree that panels are a poor way to educate.  Go to any university (or any school) and you find very little education being done via panels. )

2. Filmmakers who have no intention of shooting their films still take classes in (or read books about) cinematography so as to understand the art.   Similarly, I feel that filmmakers should at least have a sense of what is entailed in distribution and marketing a film so that they can understand that process.  This does not mean that they have to devote their life to this education (or to the work).  But with knowledge comes power.   I advise my film directing students at Cal Arts to learn the basics of budgeting and scheduling, even if they never intend to produce, AD, UPM or line produce.  I believe by learning the process, they will however acquire the tools to look at a budget and schedule and understand where resources are being allocated so that they can have an informed discussion with their line producer about said resource allocation.

3.  As independent filmmakers, we need to be prepared to take on any task in the filmmaking process, because we are never sure if we will have someone else to do that task for us.  You might not be lucky enough to have someone shoot your film, edit your film, help you with the distribution of the film.  Hence any of these roles might fall to you.  I can’t afford to take a DP with me around the world to film Bomb It 2 (or a producer or sound person) – so I am doing it myself.   Independent filmmakers have always been Jacks and Jills of all trades.  Distribution and marketing is one of the trades we thought we could hand over to others.  We know now that this (fortunately or unfortunately) is not always the case.   As I learned from my odd 7th grade math teacher: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Perplexing Problems.

4. Maybe, just maybe, in learning about distribution and marketing you might discover some new creative way to express your vision that you did not previously know existed.  I love feature films.  I love great shorts. I even love great television of either conventional length.    But these are four forms that have become ossified in the filmmaking world for too long as the only forms.  I feel that great creativity will come from expanding filmmaking – nay media creating – forms.   Why slaughter your babies in the editing room?  Find new life for them.  Why not create multiple babies in the script stage to express your thoughts in a myriad of new directions?  And still make a feature film if that is your passion.  Why not collaborate with other filmmakers to help you create these new forms of content and reach those audiences, if your goal is to focus solely on making the feature?

5.  Maybe, if you are interested, you might create a long-term relationship with a core audience, that might help to sustain you as an artist.

The central point is this: Don’t limit yourself.   Open up your arms to the vast amount of creative potential that awaits you, and do so with the collaboration of others who are eager to help you.  I believe this should be the model for us as a community to face the new financial realities of our world.   There is too much work to be done for those in our community to vilify others.  It is a time ripe for great opportunity to create and engage with audiences as we have been doing as a species since we first sat around fires telling stories.   The form will change, the meaning to us, as human beings will not.

I am doing a workshop in conjunction with IFP on June 5th and 6th. Instead of panels, we are having a cocktail party for participants to meet with distributors and other distribution and marketing service providers.

I will be doing another workshop in Vancouver on June 12 – 13th.

Finally for June I have collaborated with the LA Film Festival and Film Independent to create a three-day distribution and marketing symposium.  A day and a half boot camp for the competition filmmakers, and a day and a half open to the public focused on 1. Tools instruction  2. Exploring the potential available to us all.

For more information:  www.thinkoutsidetheboxoffice.com

Or www.jonreiss.com/blog

  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • birkenstock discount

    http://www.worldofrenewables.c...      Moncler Sweater
    http://www.yourpokersponsor.co...      Moncler Sweater
    http://ripplusa.com/blogs/entr...      Moncler Sweater
    http://www.earthnewsnet.com/co...      Moncler Sweater
    http://zk.zainabkamran.com/blo...         Moncler Sweater
    http://www.datingest.com/blogs...       Discount moncler
    http://jtwayne.net/blogs/entry...      Discount moncler
    http://www.zaboink.net/blogs/e...      Discount moncler
    http://www.hcgdietxp.com/blogs...      Discount moncler
    http://layoffsupportnetwork.co...      Discount moncler
    http://www.singlefling.com/blo...      Discount moncler
    http://abtv1.com/blogs/entry/D...       Discount moncler
    http://zk.zainabkamran.com/blo...       Discount moncler
    http://www.worldofrenewables.c...      Discount moncler
    http://ripplusa.com/blogs/entr...       Discount moncler
    http://www.earthnewsnet.com/co...        Discount moncler
    http://www.datingest.com/blogs...       Moncler Womens Jackets
    http://jtwayne.net/blogs/entry...        Moncler Womens Jackets
    http://www.hcgdietxp.com/blogs...       Moncler Womens Jackets
    http://www.zaboink.net/blogs/e...         Moncler Womens Jackets
    http://layoffsupportnetwork.co...        Moncler Womens Jackets
    http://www.singlefling.com/blo...        Moncler Womens Jackets
    http://www.yourpokersponsor.co...       Discount moncler
    http://liveparanormal.com/blog...       birkenstock discount
    http://www.we-love-israel.net/...      birkenstock discount
    http://www.i2serv.uk.tc/blogs/...       birkenstock discount
    http://www.xzooom.com/blogs/en...       birkenstock discount
    http://www.ncci-namibia.org/bl...       birkenstock discount
    http://www.ncci-namibia.org/bl...      birkenstock outlet
    http://www.xzooom.com/blogs/en...       birkenstock outlet
    http://www.i2serv.uk.tc/blogs/...       birkenstock outlet
  • Yileiyang1985
    Louis Vuitton Bag With the enthusiasm Louis Vuitton Outlet and has Bikinis become a brand that spans bags, Swimwear wallets, shoes, scarfs and so on.
    Louis Vuitton Bags Sale Belstaff  to Belstaff Jackets Outlet make sure its durable. L find from Belstaff Jackets other branded bags. Louis Vuitton Wallets also have these advantages.They are so beautiful and charming.ive.Cheap Belstaff Jacket C
  • Thanks to the experience I've gained working for Jon Reiss, I'm very excited about the idea of becoming a PMD. As I've begun seriously considering exactly what responsibilites I'd likely be assuming in this new role, I've taken Jon's ideas and tried to expand on them a bit futher:

    http://stephendypiangco.com/20...

    I'd greatly appreciate any feedback people can share in the comments section. Thanks!
  • Hhe article's content rich variety which make us move for our mood after reading this article. surprise, here you will find what you want! Recently, I found some wedsites which commodity is colorful of fashion. Such as mbt outlet store that worth you to see. Believe me these websites won’t let you down.
  • mbt shoes
    Hhe article's content rich variety which make us move for our mood after reading this article. surprise, here you will find what you want! Recently, I found some wedsites which commodity is colorful of fashion. Such as mbt outlet store that worth you to see. Believe me these websites won’t let you down.
  • Jun Kitatani
    Brilliant article. Very practical and to the point. All the resistance to the concept of the PMD in the comments are good. It's hard to see what you describe looks like. It's a very short article compared to your book, and your workshops show how things really apply and affect us. We are limited to the exposure of our past experiences. The knowledge gained through the school of hard knocks makes for a pretty tough crowd. For the most part it's a crowd that finds it hard to see the vision behind your words at first glance, unless we've been through similar circumstances to yours, or just relate to it in some way. Otherwise it just sounds foreign and "wrong."
  • The best comment I can make about this post was a guest post I had on Film Courage blog: http://filmcourage.blogspot.co... Specifically I would point out the bottom of the blog post where I talk about Satellites. I stated
    "Think about each film like launching a satellite into space and keeping it orbiting around the earth. In order to do this a satellite needs to be big enough to stay in orbit and it also needs to go high enough to break the stratosphere. Many films, sadly never make it high enough in impact to be remembered or even noticed at all.

    The main focus people have in the Indie film business is the marketing/distribution side. In recent years, Indie filmmakers have complained because the distribution process has left them out in the cold. However, maybe we're focusing on the wrong thing. If you create an innovative, bold, courageous project than the statement it makes will draw people to see your project. Why did people go to see AVATAR when it first came out in theaters? Because of the trailer? Because it was in 3D or IMAX? No, because it was all you heard about it. You want your project to be so great that people can't shut up about it!"

    My point is that marketing does make up probably over 50% of the success of your film (commercially), but it's the innovative, original, thought provoking "head turning" films that gain the best financial success. If you're going to make a film, come out with the most unique piece of art possible. But don't forget to start marketing before you ever start shooting.

    Btw, key influencers are a HUGE key to your success. A film maybe about the story, but the film business is about "who knows you and who knows your project". Get attention ASAP by people who would love to talk about your film. There are many reasons for someone to talk about your film. Maybe it's someone's friend who's starring in your film. Maybe it's the topic, the style, something new and different you're doing. Whatever it is, get the people who would talk about it to talk about ASAP.
  • Jun Kitatani
    John Wayne (Bosley), You hit the nail on the head.
    FYI for readers: AVATAR had a gazillion in publicity and marketing, Jon's (Reiss) addressing the independent film community. With no $$$ and major studio backing, the current "Industry" business-as-usual is have you bend over, and you ask "how far?" Quality story-telling is a premise to Jon's (Reiss) argument too. Jon's (Reiss) book, website and workshops give you the practical know-how and resources to get what John Wayne (Bosley) comments on accomplished, if you're interested.
  • fyi...if any filmmakers are seeking distribution resources....you can click here:

    www.thefilmcollaborative.org

    There are several parts of the site that are membership protected, but if filmmakers need access...we can make them available!
  • Jun Kitatani
    One of the best.
    A good database is "Cinando.com is the database dedicated to cinema industry professionals. It offers an extra large panorama of the film industry: contacts, profiles, film for sale, projects in development, and screening schedules during the main markets... it’s all there!"
    http://www.cinando.com/Default...
    Also from Jon Reiss "A resource and community site for filmmakers to help each other find the best solutions for their distribution and marketing needs."
    http://www.ultimatefilmguides....
    "I am also in the process of creating an online tools website so that filmmakers can share information about distributors, screening networks and the like (kind of a marketing and distribution yelp! for filmmakers). This website will eventually grow into an online academy to teach these tools to filmmakers (especially to create a cadre of PMDs for filmmakers)."
  • The Film Collaborative are very cool! They are non profit and super helpful, knowledgeable etc. I use them to negotiate all my deals now. It is one of the best concepts going. Check out their digital distribution guide.

    Jon Reiss
  • I too have been on many panels where this issue is discussed. I have felt the frustration coming from filmmakers, who got into filmmaking because they wanted to be artists...not business men and women. But, for better or for worse, that ideal of being a "pure artist" is now long gone (if it ever existed at all).

    That is, unless you are content with having your film be a proverbial "tree that falls in the forest," i.e., you don't care if anyone ever sees you film.

    Distribution today needs to start in the production process...with social media efforts, with "engaging your community," and with the birth of of your web presence.

    Lately, I've been advocating to filmmakers to start releasing clips of compelling unedited or archival footage on their sites as soon as they can. Get people excited to see the film. Give them context and a reason to feel engaged. Think of it as a transmedia/crossplatform story, and give people experiences wherever they choose to get them.

    This is no longer the "future" of independent filmmaking.....it is now.




  • Jun Kitatani
    Astute comment, Jeffrey.
    "Pure Artists" exist, and they still do. No independent in documentary or feature claims to have the business acumen of a Wall St. executive, although some come fairly close. Trail and error and/or do-or-die conditions may have pulled out the innate "business person" residing in some of us.
    Hence: "A year ago, I felt compelled to write a book about distribution and marketing for my fellow filmmakers as a guidebook to this process. I did this so that they could learn from my experience and the experiences of others and so that they wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel each time anew." (Jon Reiss)

    For cutting-edge transmedia/cross-platform success stories in the Indie arena, look to Lance Weiler:
    "The WorkBook Project is for those who want to be creative in the digital age. An open creative network that provides insight into the process of funding, creating, distributing and sustaining from one's creative efforts."
    http://workbookproject.com/

    Also: "Seize the Media is a media company dedicated to the development and exploitation of media properties in the Transmedia domain. We develop, produce and market original creative works and Transmedia programs. These works derive from our own intellectual property and from licenses that we have acquired from third parties."
    http://seizethemedia.com/

    A basic visionary.
    http://lanceweiler.com/


  • A few problems I see:

    1. I believe if you take time to talk to people, especially young people, who would be interested in the contemporary equivalent of, say, Trust, or Slacker, or Stranger Than Paradise, or (if they'd been made without name stars or directors) Elephant or Wendy & Lucy, let anything like a modern Godard or Chantal Akerman or Bela Tarr or Tarkovsky film, you'll find this is an audience that distrusts marketing in the extreme, and in fact many to most of them RESENT being marketed to. Conspicuous marketing PARTICULARLY net marketing, can be a red flag to them, a sign that something is otherwise lacking.

    Also - many of the potential audience members for indie cinema are not joiners by nature. They don't tend to join clubs, discussion groups, or do much more than click "become a fan" on Facebook.

    When I think back a couple of decades, the very LACK of conspicuous marketing or hype for a film was a plus - it was word of mouth, or a mention by a critic in an underground-ish publication, that got me and my friends to the cinema. Underground = trust.

    2. It feels to me like so much of the indie-art-film-marketing discussion is an attempt to modernize old ideas out of a desire for control and predictability, when this is really a realm where we can't control what happens. A mass-appeal product might benefit from a marketing campaign that attempts to boost viral awareness of the product - most independent film that most of us are interested in is decidedly not mass-appeal product.

    Uncertainty has always been part of filmmaking, but now its at a level that means no investors. That may be a "thing we cannot change", and focusing on changing it may be a waste of creative energy, while entering the chaotic new landscape and trying to adapt on the fly may actually teach us ways of coping.

    3. We are discussing solutions for something that encompasses everything from a lone-gun film with a $300 budget to a cross-media narrative with parts online that integrate with the film itself to the "maybe we can get Ally Sheedy, she's a name" 6 and 7 figure projects that too often are "Hollywood Lite but With Feeling". Even in the comments in the last few posts here we have people thinking the solution is audience-friendly marketable genre arguing with it's all about the art people (and I'm definitely in that camp) who want to make it possible for the next Terence Malick to emerge. Is this kind of like talking about a solution for curing a medical disease AND improving the consistency of an ice cream recipe as though they are the same thing? About that, I'm not sure.
  • Jun Kitatani
    Solutions I see to the few problems you see:

    1. What Jon Reiss et. al. suggests is not launching a marketing campaign of Studio standards. Particularly the Net marketing campaigns of Email blasts, social media promos and sales, one-way fan pages and walls plastered with self-promotion. Case in point: the indie community abhors this. You are absolutely correct. Underground is underground. Word of mouth. Trust. In this approach, the audience will never feel "marketed" to. With this approach, the creator/filmmaker make a personal connection to people who have passion for lifestyle choices and creative choices that resonate with the filmmaker's aesthetic sensibility. This connection is a ripple effect that spreads-out from the die-hard core community directly involved with the subject/genre/cause of the artist/filmmaker, to larger circles of communities that share similar interests. This is what they mean by audience building. Not the one-size-fits-all approach to targeting audiences that is the studio solution to mass appeal.

    The talking to people is indispensable to this approach. To know who your audience is, where they are, what they're connected to, what communities and what social circles exist, no matter how underground it is. The artist/creator/filmmaker's responsibility is to make a personal connection and outreach to all of them. Unique to the project, and unique to the audience. A grassroots system of targeting, building trust and love along the way.

    2. Modernization of old ideas is exactly the problem. The inability to get beyond rehashing old systems is the problem. Hence: Think Outside The Box Office. Outside mass appeal, only possible with millions in publicity anyhow, outside this-it-the-way-it's-always-been way of doing things. Jon et. al. are pointing to different possibilities through adopting new tools for adaptation, change and true independence from the one way take-it-or-leave it deals of studios, that leave all of us all in debt and force us to cut our losses so we can move on or just quit.

    You're absolutely correct. Forcing change is a waste of energy. We are creative, solving problems, ingenuity and blazing new trails is the birth right of the artist. We'll not only cope, we'll actually thrive in this new environment.

    3. Again, you are correct. Budgets range from nothing to several millions. Here the POV is budget for marketing and distribution at inception. Not just $$$, but the investment in time to discover, create identity with and build the mutual trust and confidence that manifests in true community. All grass-roots/word-of-mouth, these communities that that join will have faith in the artist/creator/filmmaker. They'll feel supported and personally involved in the generation of the community. Screenings will be decided and attended by them and the live community experience of film will be the norm, no longer the exception. Star power is star power, no matter what. Let's be clear: you're right. audience-friendly pandering is definitely not the approach forwarded by Jon et, al. Yes on curing the disease, but by targeting the cause, and not just getting rid of symptoms. Ice cream recipes are best when it's home made, when you Do It Yourself. Even if that means asking the help of trusted experts/friends and colleagues (not Do It All Yourself).
  • Also - I think we really have to accept the net as a bona fide and for many primary venue for the future. The theatrical experience is basically religion to me, and core to much of what I do and teach, but I've had to accept that in the past three years it has changed so fundamentally that what I held dear about it is permanently gone except for a handful of rep houses and alternative venues in major cities - not all that viable in a "marketing" sense.
  • Jun Kitatani
    The theatrical experience is ritual, it's religious, it's communal and intrinsic to film. However, picture a packed venue with die-hard fans and enthusiasts who attend a limited-run engagement in a place voted on and selected by them. This venue can be in a theater, outdoors, on a roof top, museum, place of worship, even a place that's suited to the genre of the film. The communal experience is heightened at these venues. any place will book a screening with attendance like this. It's a far cry from the lonely experience of sitting in an empty muliplex to see a movie you have no particular vested interest in. This is planned for at inception as "marketing and distribution" (in the new way of doing things).
  • Wow! What a great exchange of ideas here! Just gonna toss my very tiny two cents into the slot here, for whatever it might be worth.

    I enjoyed Jon's post, though the information is really nothing too new to me and to many of us, I'm sure. I was very much enamored by Emily's beautifully expressed comment. I'm of the "making art for the sake of art" school. I'm a poet first, writer second, and filmmaker because once I write a script, I want to see it come to fruition, but I dislike the tedious (and repetitive) waiting while William Morris reads over my work just to say it needs a rewrite. I personally like my teaching gig, and once I finished shooting my latest short CERISE, as awesome an experience as it was, I couldn't wait to get back in the classroom. Why? Because filmmaking is hard work! To achieve a truly awesome product is even harder. So I for one am all for surrounding myself with the best people I can find and hiring other skilled individuals to do as much of that work as possible. I think that should be the extent of filmmakers' thoughts regarding marketing and the whole "what do I do once the film's finished?" conundrum.

    By all means, every filmmaker needs to know what's going on in the film cosmos and how to navigate it for their benefit. But, as Jon mentioned, they should not be expected to tackle everything by themselves; there's a big difference between DIY and DIAY (Do It All Yourself) filmmaking, after all :-)

    One of my fears as an artist and appreciator of fine indie cinema is that if filmmakers start splitting their focus too much between art and commerce, the quality of the films may suffer; and in the long term, audiences might get used to a lesser quality film experience and disregard anything of superior caliber.

    That said, filmmakers should concentrate as close to 100% on the artistic aspects of films; all else should remain secondary, or should become a filmmaker's main focus once the film itself is complete. And this should be the case only if the filmmaker can't find a qualified PMD to aid in the process (and with the myriad resources at our disposal making it easy to find qualified crew members, finding a PMD shouldn't be too difficult.) Filmmakers just need to remember to work it into the budget :-)
  • doghouse
    The trouble with all this - and there's a lot trouble - is that it amounts to another restatement of the contradiction which goes to the heart of tAmerican independent film: because the finance is either personal or commercial, the medium "selects" all the wrong filmmakers.

    It's not so much a question of what filmmakers should do, or need to do, or what the course might be necessary or ideal for the modern filmmaker. If you could combine the marketing smarts of [fill in the blank] with the skills of a modern-day Shakespeare, wonderful. But the world does not work that way. Find a great marketer of of his own material, and I'll show you a skillful charlatan. Andy Warhol would be the obvious example, a perfect synthesis of selling marketing as art.

    This doesn't mean that some multi-skilled genius couldn't do it. But in actual practice, it doesn't happen. I also wonder at the citation of "Clerks", Blair Witch or Swingers. Successes they may be, to varying degrees. But great films? Who are we kidding? Their success proves only that success is often unpredictable, and often undeserved.

    It was bad enough in American independent film, when raising money was the prime obstacle, and selective mechanism (those who raised money made their films; others didn't). But if marketing concerns are going to intrude even before the script is written, it might be best to find some other line of work. No serious artist is going to approach the work in this way, and the films will only get worse, because those willing or eager to approach the medium in this way will not make films worth seeing. This is not as dogmatic as it sounds. Look at American independent film over the last 20 or 25 years, and tell me the free market system works -- even at a time when Sundance got 200 submissions.

    Guys, it may hopeless endeavor making movies for "art" these days, and I'm not even sure that endeavor is possible, with the non-Hollywood budgets available today. But don't kid yourself that marketing is the solution. It's just a distraction.
  • Jun Kitatani
    You are absolutely right. Marketing is not the solution. It's just a distraction, but only if it's an after-thought after the movie is made. Everything you say is true, but only in the old way of doing things; the way things are done up until now. This system no longer works. It has collapsed. This is Jon's point.

    If we learn marketing, even if we aren't the ones who do it, we'll know enough to spot con-artists and charlatans. Just don't work with them. We will have all our own marketing and distribution plans set-up in advance at inception, and properly budgeted for. We'll have trusted confidants carry out the plan. Crewed-up in this way there is no leeway for the medium to select the wrong type of filmmaker. You are the filmmaker, and those that don't do it this way will perish anyway. It's "selective" adaptation, survival of the fittest.
  • Ohhhh PMD! not PMS! then what is wrong with some people? its a free country and a very useful approach, do it or don't.
  • Jon Raymond,

    I appreciate the points you are making.

    To further the dialogue you are invoking let's touch on 2 things.

    1) Why is it that 'Hollywood,' with the most creative minds, the best technical & acting talent, elite filmmakers, and the best films will spend millions upon millions of dollars to advertise their films? We all know the ratio, in most cases Hollywood will spend just as much on their marketing as they will on the film itself. Makes me wonder why the best filmmakers in the world would bother to have their work promoted and marketed?

    2) Provide me one example of a Non-Hollywood film with no marketing budget that has reached a mass audience. If that's an easy task, please list 5 examples.
  • Five films and ORIGINAL budgets sans expensive marketing (I'm sure there are more):

    Blair Witch - $60,000
    Clerks - $27,000
    Stranger than Paradise - $90,000
    THX1138 - $777,000
    Swingers - $200,000

    Eventually, if you turned heads from the start, you can get the big marketing budgets. I have no problem with that. In fact I think that's a much more viable path to take than digital self distribution, IF your film can turn heads.

    These five filmmakers didn't start out with marketing budgets. They started out with a work of art and THAT is what won them whatever audience or marketing budget they eventually got.

    Blair Witch is an exception, because they did incorporate marketing into the film itself. Same with Four Eyed Monsters. Their marketing was a work of art. But you can't clone that process. Art is original, unusual, unprecedented and inconsistent. That would be a better dialog to have as well. How to be inconsistently creative with marketing. But I don't think you can teach that. It's not consistent.

    Arin Crumley has said no one could do what he did with marketing because the tools keep evolving. Yet he built OpenIndie to approach doing just that. That's great. But I think it's based on his limited success from a creatively marketed film that can't be duplicated. It's missing that artistic, original, turn your head aspect. It's a tool that could help if you have something worthy. You can't crowd fund without the crowd, and I don't see any of these tools actually getting that crowd. They assume the crowd is there (talk about built it and they will come). They are all based on some form of spamming.

    I don't buy the rant that things have changed and times are different so this can never happen again. Maybe the tools have changed. But I believe you still have to turns heads and if you do that you can find an audience (or more accurately it will find your film). Maybe digital tools will help you do that. But the first step remains to create something worthy. The second step is knowing if it's worthy. That has not changed.

    Supposing you prefaced every circuit marketing talk to indie filmmakers with the premise that you have to know if you have a film worthy of an audience, and then have a speaker on just that subject?

    Is your film a Swingers, or a THX1138, or a Clerks, or a Blair Witch? How can you tell? Do people (at least some people) clamor for your work? When you show your film to people, how do they react? Are they in awe of your film, or just polite? Is their anyone who saw your film and wants to bend over backwards to help you, or do they just want you to bend over? Certainly if you are truly good, someone will go to bat for you, and I mean someone with the connections to get you seen and marketed. Because if you are good, they know you can make them money too. The tools used are irrelevant up to that point.

    This premise is drummed into budding screenwriters over and over. 45,000 screenplays are written every year and submitted to studios. About one one-hundredth of those get produced, and only a handful (less than five) come from unknown or first time writers. But at least with screenwriting you aren't investing a lot of cash to make a film, unless you are one of those 44,550 rejected writers who decide to produce their own film because no one wanted their screenplay.

    Have you heard of Crap Plus One ( http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp06.Crap-plu... )? It applies.

    Why is Hollywood spending so much on marketing? Because they are shoving total crap down people's throats. The great creative minds are exploited in Hollywood. They always have been. The truly great ones have broken out of Hollywood, like Coppola, Lucas, Eastwood, and Tarantino.

    Why do you ask that? Because, as has been stated, that model is broken and unsustainable. It never worked to begin with. Less than 50% of Hollywood films ever turned a profit. That's not a business model. It's a gambling venture.

    Of course the best filmmakers will agree to big marketing. But how did they get to that point? Facebook and Twitter? No. They had to be great artists first and foremost before any distribution company or Hollywood studio would give them the time of day. Art comes first. Film is the business of selling art.

    I have no problem with landing big marketing budgets. The problem is how to get there. And what I see is people saying don't even bother trying. Just self-distribute. That doesn't work. That's just a tertiary market that exploits indie filmmakers, and puts them to work to learn how to help Hollywood use digital tools.

    Gee, if you haven't had any success making films you can always spend the rest of your life learning digital distribution so Hollywood can exploit you to sell their crap on the internet, because they have no experience with it and they're getting worried in this economy that they're out of touch.

    If you spend your time learning digital distribution then you're subverted from making films and perusing your art. You're not going to have much success with digital tools. No one has. Their successes are short lived and small.

    Yet I agree we should embrace digital distribution and have someone dedicated to doing that on our crews. But art comes first. Are you able to pay your digital distribution guru? Are you giving them a product that's easy to sell? How would you know? Is your guru excited about getting your film out or is it just a job to put shoes on their kids feet? Because that stuff has to be answered first.
  • Hey Jon

    All of the films you mentioned got picked up and distributed by the Hollywood machine. What if your film doesn't? Should you just let it gather dust or should you plan in advance what you're going to do with it to get it in front of an audience.

    I may want to clothe my kids - that doesn't make me a snake oil salesman, nor does thinking about how to connect my film with its audience make my film any more or less worthy than the next fellas. It's called covering one's arse. I'm not advocating spending all of your time on marketing, nor am I advocating trying any less hard to make a good film - what I have said all along is that I would like to make a living from my work... But that isn't why I make films - because as I'm sure you appreciate there's a whole heap of better ways to make money

    I fully appreciate that when selling the sizzle one has to remember that at some point the customer is going to expect a steak. I don't see the problem in trying to do both - ie make a good film and then plan on how to get it out there... The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

    But I'm still curious to hear what you are proposing - you make a "great" film - then what? I've just come back from the Cannes Film Festival and every distributor and sales person I spoke to said they agreed with my practical approach to my project and that they get tired of meeting filmmakers who create films with no discernible market value... and so once again we into the murky world of art v commerce - at some point someone has to encourage an audience to part with their hard earned cash to watch that movie, maybe you are willing to "hope" that someone discovers your magnum opus - but I prefer to deal in tangibles and I'm truly sorry if that notion offends you.
  • zahra, You might check out this video from Cannes: http://www.livestream.com/guer...
    Near the end is an interview with a distributor who talks about what sells and what doesn't and why they turn stuff away. Maybe you already found this out. But if not, it is enlightening and might help you figure out how to do a recut or alter your film enough to make it marketable.

    I'm not one to compromise art for business. But it can't hurt to take it into consideration. This is really inline with what Jon says here. But it's not pushing your stuff onto people with a PDM. It's pushing it onto distributors. There's something about that I find much more appealing. Besides, you can always hold onto your current cut and redistribute it later as a redux version.
  • Hey Jon (Raymond)

    Thanks for the link. I had seen that - but the sentiment is much appreciated. I am pushing my film to distributors too, but as I said way back when I think having a PMD right now while we are still developing the film is only going to help. The girl who is my PMD (recruited just this past week) is just about to graduate with a degree in media and communication, and her dissertation was on building business through social media. To me that is the perfect skillset for her to start out with... she has an understanding of film/ media but her passion is social media and networking. Obviously being a PMD is unchartered territory for her and having a PMD (Jon Reiss's blog on the duties of a PMD http://bit.ly/bYJmgY) is new for me. But even in a traditional model where we are making a film solely with the intention of passing it on to a distributor we still have a number of deliverables that we need before we get paid. Having someone working with me to help make sure I get all of these assets (and that I have copies) is going to be invaluable - often a lot of that responsibility would fall to the post-producion supervisor - but on a low budget (as with everything else) it would fall to me the producer.

    There are a number of reasons why a film may not get the viewers that we hope for - obviously the film not being any good is one of them. But for the sake of this argument let's say the film is good - but the audience is not one who frequents theatres - knowing that before launching an expensive theatrical campaign is most valuable. So we're not going to go theatrical - how else can the audience see the film? DVD, Pay TV, VoD etc etc. In the UK the big supermarket chains (where a ton of people buy their DVDs) won't stock a DVD unless you've had a theatrical - and so we are already looking at a distribution paradox - no DVDs in the supermarket without a theatrical, but the theatrical is gonna be a waste of time AND MONEY! Traditionally we as filmmakers haven't needed to know this as we've had a distributor to handle it for us... but now I know things like this I can make an informed decision as to whether I want to spend money on a theatrical if my audience doesn't go to cinemas.

    Even if I get a distributor (which I'm not ruling out) I am better of knowing where my audience consumes their media to decide if the distributor is making best use of his/her P&A budget - which will need to be recouped before I get a penny. I know this all smacks of business - but at the end of the day if I'm spending someone else's (my investors) money then I believe I have a duty to look after that money and not fritter it away.

    This is what makes me think like a business person - I have yet to find a wealthy benefactor who will give me the money to make my films and who isn't bothered whether they get that money back... They also aren't that keen on the "if I make a great film people will find it" argument - they want to see facts and figures... a bloody business plan! So I have no choice if I want to make my films at the budget levels I believe they need to achieve the artistic quality necessary then I have to be able to show that (and here's the business clincher) the market will support my proposed budget. I HATE it as much as the next person - but if that's what it takes to get my film made then that's what I have to do.
  • No offense taken. I agree with everything you say. But is your film actually great or do you just think so? How do you define great? How do you know that it's great? What if it's a sleeper? Things take time. Maybe digital tools can help you. But are you going to spend a few months doing that, or are you going to move on to try the next thing? You could put a DVD, rental, and VOD on Amazon for free with CreateSpace.com then post the film online for free and maybe people will find it, see it, and buy it, because they love it. You can use many more digital tools to get the word out. But how much time will you invest in that?

    I think if you truly have a good film and it is available and at least a few people see it, then it can be found and be a success. Isn't that what Jon is saying? It's perhaps a matter of scale. Must you spam 10,000 people on MyTwitFace or will just putting up a Facebook page for your 100 friends be enough to start word of mouth? Do you need someone dedicated to do this 8 hours a day? If so then I don't think your film is good.

    Look at My Big Fat Greek Wedding. A one woman play. No marketing whatsoever. She played at the Greek Theater and suddenly word of mouth spread. Of course Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were in the audience. They produced her $5M budgeted film. But it took no marketing to get there. Absolutely none. Digital tools would not have helped her. What helped was for Tom Hanks and a few others to see her work and LOVE it. Art comes first. OK. Maybe the play was marketed on a small scale. But my point is that the art made her, not the marketing.

    Did anyone see your film and LOVE it? If not, then make a film that people will love. If not then you haven't made a great film. If you make a great film and get some exposure it will take off.

    Where are all the GREAT filmmakers that are forsaken and languish in destitution, maybe working at banks? Because if the distribution process is so broken as everyone says then they must be out there. Do you know of any? Are you one? Or are you deluded into thinking you have made a good film that deserves distribution? Must you now spam the world and shove it down people's throats?

    And I'm not at all opposed to doing some internet marketing. But how much harder and frustrating will that be if people don't want your film? How will you even know if that happens?

    Are you dependent on your film making money? Because I think that's a formula for disaster. You want to cloth your kids. But must you do that with your film? I don't think a filmmaker can concentrate on their art if they are worried their kids have no shoes unless it gets distribution.
  • "Look at My Big Fat Greek Wedding. A one woman play. No marketing whatsoever. She played at the Greek Theater and suddenly word of mouth spread."

    Uh, Jon ? That IS marketing...

    If Twitter were available back then, someone in the audience would have told his/her followers about a great play he/she had just seen... But as it was, Nia Vardalos relied on the word of mouth generated by the many actors and others she knew from her years in Hollywood (as well as her husband who is a known character actor) to help spread the word throughout the industry.

    Yes, if MBFGW had been shite then it wouldn't have gone anywhere. But, as it was Vardalos took a chance and spread the word.

    Marketing. The internet has just made it more widespread is all.
  • Exactly my point. No eight digit marketing budget required. No PMD. The artists didn't give a thought to it. It was all her art that did it. Art. Not business. Thank you for the validation.
  • Jun Kitatani
    Your idea of internet marketing is not in line with what Jon Reiss is talking about. You're clearly and succinctly describing the old systems of marketing and distribution applied to the new digital landscape. Jon's PMD does not serve that function.

    A film has to be first and foremost a great story. No one is arguing that point. A great story sells itself.

    Zahra is making excellent points on the topic at hand. FYI Teaching Zahra about the "realities"of making money viz. your assumptions about what Zahra is referring to about marketing and distribution is clearly out of context, and you're missing the point. That's why you're disagreeing with pretty much everybody on this thread.

    You did a lot of homework so you can write a great story. This is about doing some more homework about marketing and distribution in the new landscape we are all facing. It's just about owning-up to and adapting to the changes. The starting point of the discussion has already shifted to a place where you're not at on your comments.

    Jon et. al. aren't saying we have to agree or go with it. Just that if we don't, no matter how many cuts or changes we make to our stories, we're not going to make it. Financially or otherwise.

    A new system is being discussed here. It takes some open-minded reassessment of what we've come to accept as the standard modus operandi. Zahra's discussion is operating at that newer level.
  • Jun,
    I don't disagree with you, Jon or Zahra. I just have a few points of contention. Nothing is clearly black or white. Yeah, I'm taking about the old school distribution because that has a track record of working. PMD's do not. Show me a film marketed by PMDs or social networking that grossed eight figures, that did not also have traditional P&A. How about seven figures?

    Having said that, I embrace the PMD concept, and everything Jon talks about. But it's hardly earned a rep worthy of what traditional distribution has done.

    So, I see where PMDs can maybe save a low budget project that can't make it otherwise. Or PMDs may be a new career field for people who want to help Hollywood crawl out of its technologically bankrupt hole.

    But you state my case when you say, "A film has to be first and foremost a great story. No one is arguing that point. A great story sells itself." If you truly believe that, why would you ever need a PMD? The problem with your statement is that you (and pretty much everyone else playing follow the leader) ASSUME we are talking about great or even good films. That is not a given. And if that is step one, and it is not a given, then that is where the crux of the problem lies. We are not making great films.

    But again, the word GREAT is up for interpretation. Does it mean marketable, money making, or what? Does it mean great in the sense of classic greatness? This is the discussion we are not having and that I think we desperately need to have. Pure and simple, if you truly make a good, great or marketable film and show it to a few of the right people, you will see it became successful. PMDS are not going to save a bad film. I do not believe there are hundreds or thousands of great films languishing away forsaken by the traditional distribution system. That is pure rationalization to escape and not face reality; the reality that your film sucks. And I include myself and my work in that statement.
  • Jun Kitatani
    Well said. I figured this is exactly where you're coming from. Your intelligence is evident in your commentary, you obviously have a lot of real life experience, including filmmaking, R&D and reading about and viewing films. Clearly and succinctly stated.

    I only reiterate the premise to Jon's (Reiss) logic in all my comments. e.g.

    "There is no one kind of filmmaker. Never has, never will be. Thank god. Each person who is involved in independent film has his or her own desires, interests, passions, loves, hates. Each filmmaker has different motivations for making a film. Some want to make a statement, change the world – whether it is social or artistic. Some want to make money. Some want to express an idea or emotion to as many people as possible. Most filmmakers want it all. However if push comes to shove, filmmakers will prioritize what they want from their films. And these desires are different for different filmmakers." (JR)

    You're right. There's absolutely no discussion on story and story-telling principles here whatsoever. Yes, there's s a desperate need to discuss it. Exactly like you say, it's the core. An original and well structured story within the constraints of the design selected (the most common arch-plot, the art-house minimalist plot and the avant-garde anti-plots, etc.) will entertain, sell and enjoy a long life, for it's specific, intended and targeted audience. If we have tons of $$$, there is no need to read TOTBO, because we'd be in the BO, hired by a major studio. (fyi, Peter Jackson is suing Newline because he did not make any money on TLOTR; Hurt Locker is the lowest grossing Academy Award winner to date).

    The premise (again? geesh!) here is we have a quality screenplay; we're not signed with a major motion picture studio; the reality that nobody's picking up films by the handful, not even if it's a killer film; we're indie and don't have a Hollywood budget to work with.

    What options do we have? Lots of indies are turning to TOTBO, DIY Days, Hope for Films, etc. If you want it, and if you need it, it's here. It's tons of extra homework and all the work is labor intensive. DIY, but not DI-all-Y. This is where to find the resources, network and community. Connections exist that let you crew up with software developers, visual artists, lawyers, distributors and bookers that specialize and have working knowledge in this area. Our audience is changing anyway. Expectations, needs, etc. We're changing to meet those needs. It's all here so we can have other options and choices.

    I assume you know this all. I just reiterate for the sake of clarification. You're very smart and your passion and enthusiasm comes through your writing and commentary. I can tell you're right in everything you say, but I know there are people out there who'll dismiss the content of your words because of the emotionally provocative way you chose to write them. Clearly you're not just being trite and contrary, but it's an easy thing to assume. Especially on comment threads like these.

    BTW, best of luck with all your projects. Share your successes, knowledge and insights with us. Good to meet you online.


  • Thanks Jun
  • JW48
    I'm the writer/producer of the UK no-budget feature, Diary of a Bad Lad, which release both theatrically and on DVD at the end of the month. After a really long haul we managed to negotiate a 'hybrid' deal which gives us creative control over additional material -extras, print, stunts, and so on, whilst our distributor looks after the nuts and bolts. Maybe it's because my original background was in fringe theatre that I love the whole process of 'being a showman'. And maybe that's also why we set out to make films which are different, thought-provoking, disturbing, funny, cathartic, and not remotely like anything Hollywood.
    But I too have come to be a bit concerned about an emerging model whereby more and more people seem to be seeing filmmaking as being a way in which you set yourself up as an internet marketing guru who goes out on tour with their one powerpoint presentation - and, geez, it really has turned into a 'seen one, seen them all' phenomena.
    Being from the UK, this has started to become particularly irritating. The bottom fell out of indie filmmaking for various reasons: out-manoevred by Hollywood, culled by pay-tv film channel buyers, economic downturn resulting in no pre-sales, and so on. Indie filmmakers were thus thrown back on their own resources - either that or nothing. A very small number in the US have managed, through tireless marketing, self-promotion - and discovering ways of monetizing that self-promotion, have managed to break even.
    But that's under circumstances in which they are plying this trade in the world's largest film market (the USA) which is almost totally protected from foreign competition.
    The UK is a different matter all together: the film market is 90% less than the US market. But not only that, Hollywood has around 93% of that UK market, and then Canadian and French companies have a substantial chunk of the rest. Under such circumstances 'DIY'. 'Self-Distribution', 'Internet marketing', social media, etc represents no viable model at all. All it does is to serve to divert attention away from the real structural problems which drastically limit exhibition opportunities for indie filmmakers (whether British or American) and do not allow for the development of viable conventional distribution companies.
    Interestingly enough the UK Film Council - an organisation primarily devoted to selling UK production facilities to Hollywood at the British tax-payers expense (and to the cost of the loss of American workers' jobs) - when questioned in Parliament about structural problems afflicting British filmmaking side-stepped all the issues by claiming that the 'digital economy' meant they were no longer relevant.
  • I think the reason the focus isn't on "making good films" is that that *should* be a given and to be honest (even in the UK - where I am and most films have a VERY limited audience) I don't think any of us sets out to make a bad film. Hell Tommy Wiseau thought The Room was gonna be good! And therein lies the problem - it's often difficult to objectively look at our work and say "is it any good?" as filmmakers we are waaaay to close to our films to be clear-headed enough to judge them critically. Secondly (and it REALLY pains me to say this) what makes a bad film? Or actually what makes a film mediocre or not great? I could name you dozens of films that I think are fairly rubbish (admittedly they look pretty) that have gone on to decent BO and won top awards... so someone thinks they are good. (which I suppose is also what Goldman meant!)

    The thing is film is a weird hybrid of art and business - because it's SOOOO damn expensive - unless you are willing to be a one man band and spend years on one project making it alone. Those crew who you need to help you realise your vision have mortgages and children and need paying... and once you move beyond the crowd-sourcing (essentially donating) avenues of film funding, unless you are wealthy, then you will have investors... and those investors sure as hell won't want to continually support your vision unless you have a damn good way of getting them their money (and then some) back. At which point it becomes a business - and you have to at least consider how you will get your money back.

    I am a huge dreamer and tend to be majorly optimistic - but I think that, as filmmakers, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the public will "find" our work as long as it's truly great... it's the most self-defeating form of naivety and also part of the reason we as filmmakers have taken until 2010 to realise that our business (there's that dirty word again) model is broken and unsustainable. Look at how many good Hollywood films that check the proverbial boxes and have that huge marketing machine behind them fail to score at the BO... EG "Shawshak Redemption" - made from existing material, with name cast, well made, genre etc etc - and it is known to have been a bum at the box office - granted it found its audience on DVD - but will our films have that luxury when we are also paying for the DVDs and can't afford to get them on the front page of Amazon? The long tail is all well and good if people can find you - but among the cacophony of sh1t that pervades the online world - how can anyone find one particular thing? Google - costs money for SEO, Amazon costs money to be on the front page or in their spam emails, iTunes you need to go through an aggregator who essentially is a gatekeeper - or you need to be an App - but again how would one find my great little independent film from Newcastle among all of the apps for beer pong and CoD add ons???

    The whole point of TOTBO and the lessons that Jon is preaching is that if we start thinking about these things up front (and often by thinking laterally) and surround ourselves with a team of people who can help us reach our audience then we put ourselves in a much better position to be found by our audience. If we don't want to go down the traditional route of an all rights deal to a one stop shop distributor then how can we find a way to get our films in front of an audience?

    If I'm spending my time making my film, do I have the time to endlessly Tweet about it or find the best T-shirt manufacturer and website company to help with my merchandise? Of course I don't - and to be honest I really can't be bothered to DO that... I have tried the whole running a business thing and it wasn't for me... but someone has to do that and if you're not selling your rights too cheaply to a distributor to do that for you then who is going to do it? And if you are going to wait until you've made your film then it'll take even longer to move on to your next film... unless you'll just be happy to let the first one reside lonely and unwatched as a series of 0s and 1s! Y(our) competition for audience is infinite, from Avatar to America's Got Talent to Waterskiing Squirrel there is a TON of media to consume - how can you make sure that yours is on the menu?
  • Ehh. Sorry. You're wrong.

    You make the case with Shawshank. It was a great film and it's audience found it. Great films are found. I don't believe there are a plethora of Shawshanks floating around in people's basements gathering dust because no one wanted to see them, or no one could distribute them. That is a load of crap. I don't think you believe that either.

    IF you make a great film (not just a film that's better than the crap out there), a film that people want to see, then it will find it's audience. I'm not saying to ignore Jon. I'm not saying ignore marketing. I'm saying we're talking like marketing is 99% of the game. It's not. It's 1%. Not unless you're selling crap. If you have a film that people want, you can put it out there with some effort and it will be seen, especially using just a few internet tools.

    How hard can it be to get 50 or a hundred people to check out your trailer online? IF it's compelling, that's a piece of cake. You'll get at least a handful to see the film IF it's available. IF the film is great that handful will spread the word. This is a basic tenant of marketing that everyone in marketing insists on ignoring because they aren't concerned about getting good stuff distributed. They're concerned about selling crap that people don't really want.

    Film is not a mix of art and business. The art has to exist before you even start talking about business, unless you're Marvel and can budget Iron Man. But even then, Iron Man existed as art for years before it was ever made. If you didn't have comic artists you wouldn't have all the comic films that have made so many hits.

    You have to have the art first, and it has to be great art. Until marketing people get this simple concept into their heads they will continue to fail at selling anything that is not great art, beyond ramming it down people's throats with eight digit distribution campaigns, and now maybe with internet tools. Maybe. Not likely. Have any internet campaigns made big time returns for anyone? No.

    It's been said that if someone writes a GREAT screenplay and throws it out in the street, it will get made. Truly great work is hard to come by. You CANNOT assume that we're always talking about films that are good. That is not a given in a world where 90% of films made, whether from Hollywood or someone's garage, are total crap.

    The problem with marketing is not HOW you market. It's WHAT you market.

    And there's nothing wrong with making crap films. That's how we get better. But we have to recognize that process. Doing that is the solution to marketing.

    No we don't set out to make bad films. And we don't know our films are bad. This is the dialog we should be having. Why don't we know? What can we do to make sure we do know? When should we decide it's not worth tweeting your film five hours everyday, instead of writing the next script? Where are the Ted Hopes who tell us the stories of how they funded 21 Grams and help us to see what it takes to make films like that? Does it take Facebook and Twitter? I don't think so.

    Of course we should think about our audience. How can you make films and not think about them? Sure Jon has some good advice on marketing. But it's so small a part of the problem that I don't see why we bother to talk about it day after day after day.

    Do you want to spend the capital of your precious labor marketing stuff that people don't really care about? Wouldn't you prefer for people to clamor for your work? If film is just a business to you then you deserve to fail. You're a snake oil salesman. If you think it's a mix of art and business you're deluded. It's not a mix. You don't do a little art here and a little business there. You create the art before anything. You can't pitch a damned thing until you have something to pitch. That is art, not business.

    And you think this is self defeating? Is that why the business model of distribution has worked so well and everybody has no problem using it to be a success? What did you say was "broken and unsustainable?"

    Pot - kettle - black?

    Then you talk about pleasing investors. You want to please investors? Make something great that will knock their socks off. The Coens got funding for their first film, Blood Simple, just on a screening of a trailer. The trailer was just a guy's fist coming through a wall. Compelling. Moving. Frightening. Art! That's called landing investors. That's called being an artist.
  • zakforsman
    jon raymond, every time i walk on set, i do so with the hope to learn something. you wonder why no one talks online about how to make better films? it's because you can't learn it in the comments section of a blog. and until arin crumley finds a way to direct and edit a picture in a virtual space, that process will remain uniquely analog.

    internet discussion is not going to foster better film artists. but it can foster an atmosphere of learning and feedback in a creatively safe atmosphere. I'm a moderator at one of the largest filmmaking discussion communities on the web. three times a year we hold three themed short film contests at no charge to their members. Each fest offers $15,000 in prizes donated by sponsor. I have seen this community give aspiring filmmakers cause to produce both terrible and exciting work, but also nurture a hands-on education from the experience of doing it. In one case, I even saw a kid go from making the most amateurish, derivative thriller you ever saw, to selling his most recent picture to a mini-major -- all in the span of three years. I've seen a woman in her forties make her first narrative feature a success by inviting the filmmaking community and the community inherently interested in her subject to participate in its making, giving feedback on everything from music to cut scenes to poster artwork so she could make the best film to her ability. she's now selling territories left and right and has a supportive fanbase invested in seeing her succeed, which ensures she can make another picture, a better picture, as she continues to grow. (google: Faith Granger and DVXUser).

    anyway, I'm telling you, it's out there. and with the right kind of eyes, you might begin to see it.

    but here you are. you're banging your head against the wall wondering why no one understands the need to make a great picture first and foremost. part of me wants to let you go for the entertainment value of a downward spiral, but you have to know that we *do* understand this notion of setting out to make the finest work we are capable of. that is a given. the question we're asking now is, "then what?" after investing our heart, soul and intellect into our work, how do we best support all that creatively exhausting effort? how do we do our best not to undermine ourselves? what you describe (great art simply rising from obscurity) sounds to me like relying a bit too heavily on "luck", which I find has been best defined as the meeting of preparation and opportunity. so let's discuss how we can prepare for the opportunities that producing great work brings. given that i have yet to meet a filmmaker (and I've met a lot) who sets out to make a piece of garbage he can flip for some dough, I'm not even sure who you're talking to. Where are these masses of filmmakers in need of this message? and why on earth should any one of us forbid ourselves from seeking answers and building an infrastructure that supports us and builds us up, rather than tears us down?
  • Gee Zac. Look at Faith Granger's Facebook page ( http://www.facebook.com/deuceo... ). Here's what she says:

    "Looking back I can say that my entire life has been dedicated to the pursuit of artistic expression."

    That's my point. Art comes first. I'm not banging my head. I'm simply saying that any dialog about marketing has to include the fact that most stuff people market is crap. But everyone ignores this elephant in the room. Everyone who talks about digital tools assumes we are marketing stuff people want. But that's far from reality. Because if people actually wanted it, there would be many more success stories out there.

    We have to at least mention that initial hump of recognizing that what you have is worthy. Otherwise you're telling people to spend a lot of time and money on a futile effort. Maybe we can't have a dialog abut how to make better films. But we can have one about how to know if we've made a film that's worthy of an audience. I think this first step is really the root of the problem for 99% of filmmakers. Talking about this will help filmmaker make better films.

    But we aren't really talking about people who make the stuff that turns heads are we? We're talking about people who want to keep shoes on their kids feet by making films. That is not a valid reason to make films? If that is your intent, you are set up for failure.

    We know that filmmaking is not a profession like so many others where if you learn the tools of the trade and become proficient at using them you can make a living. It has to go way beyond that. So the promise of digital distribution is empty without talking about the first step of having something worthy.

    Now we have this plethora of talk circuits, and film festival forums, and people selling books, all for what? For failed filmmakers to make a living on the tertiary market of other failed filmmakers?
  • Bravo.
  • Shawshank found its audience on DVD - I didn't say it didn't have an audience, I said it was a box office bum - and it WAS and no amount of revisonist jiggery pokery will change that fact. Shawshank is a great film, my point is that even great films don't always find the audience they deserve (in Shawshank's case - bums on seats in a cinema)!

    Using Blood Simple as an example is, not only fatuous, it's daft - because d'uh the world was a different place then. You ONLY made a film if you shot on film... Therefore the barrier to entry was already set high thus keeping the numbers of filmmakers out there down. Now $2000 and you have all the kit you need to make a decent looking film (ie one with "professional production values") that doesn't mean that you will have the talent or vision to make a great film but it means any man and his dog can call himself a filmmaker. We didn't have the internet and VOD and Tivo and all of the media and platforms that that brings to the table. The competition is 200 times as fierce as it was then. We used to have a thing called foreign pre-sales that was a fine way of recouping for your investor - they have all but disappeared now. On top of all this we didn't have Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and the arse falling out of the markets or any of the other challenges we face today. Clearly the cream will always rise to the top - but - I would assert that it has more shit to wade through to get there now! And at the same time the audience still has to be reached, but now you are competing not just against Hollywood (as you always were) but all of the other filmmakers out there. Sundance gets 100 times more submissions than it used to - and in the last 2 years less than half of those accepted walked away with good deals - back in the day about 80% got picked up. The world is VERY different now!

    The reason marketing and DIY is the hot topic at the moment is that it's relatively new... No one (and certainly not me) is saying let's not think about the films we're making now - let's just make any old shit and know that if we tweet it right people will watch it! I know for a fact that I have been too closed off in my thinking for too long as a filmmaker. Only trying to make better films and having a vague hope that someday - if I build it - someone will come... Well this isn't Field of Dreams and it sure as hell aint Kansas - we need to get out of our silos and think about the next part of the equation - ie we've made a film - now what? And if all it takes is getting someone on board (who likes marketing) along side you in return for a co-producer credit as well as the title of PMD to explore how you can best reach your audience then I don't think it's too high a price to pay... and you know what if you're one of the lucky ones whose art is discovered and you get the deal of all deals from Focus to put your film out there, then I'm sure they'll appreciate the fact that you at least understand the concept of how to get your film in front of an audience.

    I'm not in this to make money per se - but my kids do need shoes on their feet and I for one am not ashamed to say I would like to make a living (no need for yachts and caviar) from making films.
  • So how is that shoes thing working out for you?
  • Just bought a pair the other day - the boy loves them... thanks for asking.

    Here's the thing though Jon - what do you propose? Really. Without me (or anyone else) second guessing you, spell it out for me. We make a "great" film... and then what? Humour me, fill in the blanks. x
  • Jon, I'm glad you attempt to define "distribution and marketing" even though it would appear the definitions are so varied and nebulous that the terms are meaningless; because that would have been my main criticism of how this is all moot. Not to mention how you are drawing the lines in the sand with this as much as anyone.

    But since that's not the case, I can question your statement about how horrible it would be to have to re-learn lighting every time we shoot a film. Isn't that what filmmakers do? [I mean the good ones.] With every film they learn new things and new ways because every film has its own vision and feeling and doing it completely different every time is probably the only true constant (i.e. being inconsistent) in filmmaking. [Of course you'd have to be an artist to understand that. Art has no rules. No consistency. No cerebral logic. ]

    Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. So that's not much of a reason to do anything (in itself).

    Now don't anyone go off half cocked with some vitriolic statement about how vitriolic some people are who post here. I'm simply making a point or two. No hate or bad feelings intended. I welcome all the information here and that Jon points out others have made and, yes, knowledge is power. I just have a few points of contention (and knowledge) to impart.

    1. Filmmakers are artists first. You can't sell art without making it first.

    2. Filmmakers who are about business first are not about selling art. They are about making money. Ultimately that boils down to selling snake oil. Sorry. Those people suck.

    3. As to "distribution and marketing", the very act of making a film means you are concerned about that. You say as much. But what are your priorities? Do you have any? Are they consistent? Should they be?

    4. If you're a great artist your audience will find you. Yes, having a few internet tools helps. Thank you very much. But after putting something out there, how far must you go to keep ramming it down people's throats? Give it up and try making a GOOD film.

    5. Why is the dialog consistently about marketing and distribution and NOT about making GOOD films? Oh wait. Could it be because film is not an art, its a business? Gee. That just might be why nobody gets caught up with making good films. I mean, you have so much time in a day. Are you going to spend it working out the lighting mood for your film, or spamming would be audiences? Are you going to write your next script and make it ten times better, or are you going to keep ramming that last film for months on end, because you're convinced its great. A thousand people actually liked it.

    Edit: 5a: yeah, you want to create a position to do all that. Big deal. So now distributors get credit. Great for them. We still can't afford them and the argument comes down to how we should be using all these tools ourselves. [Is this actually about how to keep people in the film BUSINESS employed since the economy has gone bad and no one wants to buy shit films anymore?]

    6. Why is everyone so afraid to tell filmmakers to move on (to the next film)? No one wants to step on anyone's toes. We can't have any burnt bridges with all these other people in the business who are so sensitive to art and so understanding to each other. Yeah, your film was good. Just not good enough.

    7. [edit added] Why isn't the dialog about how making truly great films is the thing that wins an audience, not leveraging technology to shove films down their throats?

    I guess I'm saying that the dialog is always 99% about marketing and 1% about how to make compelling movies that people will love. By that I mean LOVE, not BUY.
  • Jon,

    Thanks for the response.

    In general this discussion only pertains to people who want to learn from others and what they have done before. If someone wants to strike out on their own without using any prior film knowledge, that's wonderful if that's what they want to do to create their art. But that trial and error is time consuming. Those filmmakers are owning that work in creation of their art. I wrote the book and teach this material, especially because it is not something that should consume filmmakers. I want to try to help filmmakers spend as little time on the process as possible while achieving their goals for their film (its going to still be a fair amount of work depending on the film and what the filmmaker wants to achieve with it) - I do this so that they can spend more time making their films. I feel that the way to do this is to gain knowledge from others.

    The idea of the PMD was the item written for the book. I had written the chapter on what I call The New 50/50. 50% of a filmmakers time goes into making a film. The other 50% is to connect it to an audience. (this is not a hard and fast rule but a guide to a mind set shift). I felt it was unfair to make this statement without providing some solutions for filmmakers - hence the concept of the PMD and a team of people working with the PMD to help filmmakers in this work - so that they can concentrate on what they do best - make films. (again this is not for everyone and every film - which I also say in the book)

    I think giving a brief outline of what I feel is a helpful system for filmmakers in looking at their work will help address your other issues.

    Filmmakers should determine what their goals are for making their film and connecting it to an audience. Not all filmmakers either want to make art or commerce. Some want to change the world. The want to create a statement with their film and then get it out in the most effective ways to affect change. I feel it is important to prioritize those goals to help make choices in the process.

    Filmmakers should evaluate their films and where it sits in their careers. It is important to match the quality of the film with the effort expended in connecting it to an audience. It is important to consider where the film sits in your career path. Filmmakers need to spend the time to make their films as good as possible - this is the best thing they can do in order to connect it to an audience (I think we are in agreement here Jon). This is one of the reasons I feel dist and marketing starts before finishing a film. Dist and marketing boils down to connecting your film to an audience. Perhaps it is best to put the film out in the easiest way possible, let whatever audience that will find the film find it and move on. On the other hand - perhaps it is worth the effort to pull together a group of people to ensure that the world knows this film exists and try to connect it to audiences that will want to see it. I believe this is the reason most filmmakers make films ultimately (in addition to expressing their passionate vision).

    If an audience for a film is desired - then it is good to evaluate who that audience is and try to connect with them as soon as possible. Again this is not necessarily something for the director/filmmaker to do. Audience building does take time these days. A head start helps. In the crowded media landscape I think that it is rare that an audience just finds a film. I'd be curious to see some examples.

    Evaluate your resources. Match the release to your resources. Or get more resources - this might involve getting people to help you with the dist and marketing of the film. So that you aren't doing it by yourself and you can still do it in some effective way even if you can't afford a distributor for hire. There are a number of tools that exist that can help filmmakers in this regard, but it is important to create knowledge to evaluate how helpful they are. Just as people evaluate different kinds of equipment and processes when making a film.

    Finally I don't think the dialogue is always about marketing and not about making films. There has been a blip in the film radar after the collapse of traditional distribution systems and people are in search of new models to help them connect with audience. Eventually this will settle out and a balance will be achieved. However I do feel that there are people out there who don't want to talk about distribution and marketing anymore and just want to talk about film. Its a matter of finding them as well. Many of them are on Hammer to Nail as you know. Personally I put this information out only for those who are interested in it. For those who are not interested, there is nothing forcing them to be involved. Just as nothing forces would be filmmakers to go to film schools, read books on making films etc. Its all a choice and there are a plethora of film communities to choose from. Many of them at a burgeoning indie screening movement such as Cinefamily and Cinefist in LA and Rooftop Films in NY.


    Jon
  • Jon. Thanks so much for the thoughtful response. You make good points. I can't disagree with any of it, and I do value it, in fact. If only I could find a PMD to work for free or the back that they will bring in, I'd be happy. But since I don't have the time myself or the resources, that is not an option. I've done some myself but it hasn't gone far. I contend the problem is that my film isn't good enough to take off, and I am doing a new cut based on feedback. That may help. But I doubt it. I think it is so much more about the film itself than it is about marketing, and that is what's missing from the conversation. You touch on that and it's taken as a given. It's not a given. It's a huge part of the problem.
  • Jon. I think you could greatly benefit by Caitlin Boyle's community outreach guideance. She only charges $250 now for a consult (I paid her $400 for the same for Bomb It and it was someof the best money I spent). I say this because I looked at your site and felt that your film specifically could benefit from it. You could just read the chapter in the book she collaborated with me on. But I think that small $ is worth it for her to taylor the discussion for your film. RE a PMD. I'd rec Mandy.com and post as a director's asst to start with the potential of advancing to Assoc producer/coproducer full producer depending on time and committment . Lot of up and comers out there who want to break in and sink their teeth in on a film.
  • Thanks Jon
  • Guest
    Thanks for continuing to put this conversation in its proper perspective Jon. A PMD's role and function would be dangerously misappropriated if it were confined to marketing activities.

    Case in point: I'm currently facing the daunting task of presenting deliverables, which are now comprised of a combination of film prints and digital media with various technical specifications I knew nothing about last month! The process of creating, managing and distributing these versions must be meticulously managed by a competent someone--as our digital industry evolves and hybrid distribution strategies become more complex, that someone is your PMD.
  • Merrynell
    "It should be understood by our community that distribution and marketing are not about tailoring your film to an audience that you feel you can capitalize on..."

    Working closely with John Trigonis on CERISE (and his other projects), I can very well understand why making filmmakers understand the importance of marketability is like pulling teeth. When you've pitched your script to indie/Hollywood studios and you get a "no, but if you make it into a comedy, we'll probably take it" or if you've been told several times that your ideas are good but not worth any money, it's easy to conclude that distribution and marketing is about gearing your product to an audience you can capitalize on.

    Speaking of product, there are still filmmakers out there who cannot look at their art as a product or commodity. There are still filmmakers who make art “for the sake of art.” The phrase “it’s hard to kill your own babies” has become a filmmaking cliché for a reason. A lot of filmmakers first and foremost want their baby to be seen by many; whether it makes money or not is optional – at least according to the filmmakers I know.

    Marketing and distribution can be a lot to take in for filmmakers (on top of trying to focus on their art), so getting a “PMD” to do it for them is better than coercing them into learning all about it.
  • I do have a concern sometimes that there is the entire industry that makes money off filmmakers. Now I know we all need help. Making a film isn't a one-man-band adventure. But there are a lot of "experts" and others out there that promise the world but deliver little-to-nothing when it comes to actual results. There are many great marketers, sales agents, etc. It's just cutting through the clutter to find the real result-makers and not the "snake oil salesmen".

    But I thought this blog post was great. Thanks Jon.
  • This film was a one man band venture: http://gothealthcaremovie.com (not by preference)
  • laurabot
    see M-A-R-K-E-T-I-N-G
  • zakforsman
    don't bother posting a link. if it's good, we'll find it. :)
  • But Zac, that's exactly my point, if it were good you wouldn't need the link. You'd have sought it out for yourself.
  • Same exact was going through my head Zak!
  • One of the things I appreciated about your article, Jon, isn't even in your five reasons -- but is certainly worth repeating in the wake of all this #PanelGate hoopla: there is no one monolithic way of making a film or being an independent filmmaker. Folks make assumptions about what it means to be an indie (doesn't have studio backing, less than $1M budget, isn't famous, mortgaged their home to pay for it, etc. etc.), and then we become surprised when we argue! Or maybe some of us aren't surprised anymore...

    Being "independent" conjures a number of romantic notions of "pure" artistic vision, sleep-deprived days and nights and the value of such "grit" and determination, the little guy beating the odds to topple Goliath, and, of course, the big score when everyone and Miramax loves our little engines that could, and we can quit our soul-sucking day jobs and do nothing but film (or eat bonbons in Bel Air) forever... but these are just a handful of stories about what being an independent filmmaker could be. I think what's amazing about the current state of affairs is that motion picture/audio technology has advanced to the point where it is both extraordinarily high quality and financially within reach of a critical mass of people who have a story to tell. Not just the wealthy or the well-connected or the privileged or the powerful -- but literally, anyone with a few hundred bucks can get a consumer-level HD camera and start committing their story to a medium that can be reproduced and transmitted and shared.

    Which means the old economic structures for shooting motion pictures and distributing them, while still active (and become more and more grandiose and spectacular by the day), have some serious competition. Making movies was a system, but its no longer the only game in town if you want to make your movie, have crowds of people see it and know your work, and be compensated for your labor. Do each of those interlocking steps take an incredible amount of time, resources, skill and energy? Absolutely. But I think the one thing we can all agree on about independent filmmakers is that we have no shortage of determination (unless we're heartbroken -- but that's a post for another day). What I appreciate most about your post here, and your book, and all of the many appearances I see you making around the world and on the internet, is the way that you are helping to foster a community of folks who share tactics and strategies and ideas -- instead of hoarding them for individual/studio gain. I think that kind of open-hearted, open-source mentality *is* the independent revolution these days.

    What I can't wait to see is where we are in 10 years -- still bickering and cannibalizing each other? Or developing mad skills *with* one another to mount a significant, viable, sustainable alternative to the studio system? I hope (and work) for the latter.

    Also, looking forward to your NYC workshop with IFP! I'm looking forward to the conversation and the skillshare -- and hopefully getting to meet some of my Twitter-kin face-to-face!
  • I think you might find this interesting

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
  • The link is about our innate need for challenge, mastery and making a contribution. The purpose motive vs. financial motive.
  • Brilliant. You are a beautiful writer Emily!
  • While I don't necessarily disagree with anything in particular Jon says here, (I find him to be both knowledgeable, and even handed), does it concern anyone else that what appears to be truly be rising from the ashes of 'independent film as industry' is the 'independent filmmaker self-help industry'? I won't be surprised to see 'how to market your indie film' books and seminar revenues soon outpace actual independent film revenues.
  • My goodness, given the state of the publishing industry, I certainly would be surprised if revenue from books outpaced revenue from films. ;)

    To be a little less tongue-in-cheek, I think folks move in cycles creatively. I know when I've been gearing up for production or aiming to get inspired about writing or percolating about the next project, I've gone through phases when all I wanted to do was soak up as much information as possible. There was a time when the way to do that, as a working class person, was to head to the local public library and read everything I could find on the subject. Now I can gain access to a whole wealth of information online (though I still go to the library). But there's a point for me, and I imagine a lot of folks, when you reach your limit. You can no longer take anything else in -- and its time to put things OUT into the world. But that gestating time is worthwhile, as are the folks who share their expertise and experiences with the world.

    The warning is well-taken -- we can't get lost in other people's authority and idiosyncratic experiences -- but I think there is value in it, especially for new folks.
  • Ha! Probably correct.

    I agree with you, and frankly don't have an issue with folks trading on their knowledge. I've seen Jon speak in person, and knowing his history realize he is speaking from a diverse wealth of knowledge uniquely centered between both the creative, and marketing.

    I think you said it best in your response, we do need an "open-hearted, open-source mentality." I hope that is what rises from all this, and wins out over the predatory greed that abounds in this industry.
  • Thanks for the kind words Gregory. My point is that this area of knowledge is now just as important as other aspects of filmmaking knowledge. No one has an issue with the plethora of screen writing classes or film schools for that matter. If people aren't interested in those classes they just ignore them. Ultimately its a matter of providing an option for people who want to learn. I actually never imagined doing these workshops. I thought the book would be enough. But people have seemed to value them and I realized that people learn in different ways. Its why I wrote the book after writing the Filmmaker Magazine articles because people expressed a need for it to me.

    I would love your advice and input on the open source resource I created for filmmakers who are dealing with this issue: www.ultimatefilmguides.com Which is intended as a Yelp for filmmakers. I welcome your contributions.
  • Thanks, Jon. Again, I say this being, for all intents and purposes, in agreement with you, and as person (and artist) that is marketing and distributing my own work. But I feel it's important to state the difference between this new advent of 'filmmaker self-help', and screenwriting courses, or film school is that there are actually experts in these fields (or crafts). Other than yourself, or Lance Weiler (who is very open source in his approach to sharing his knowledge, and harnessing that of others), there isn't a large number of actual experts in this new world of distribution, primarily because everything is so new, and changing constantly.

    That said, there seems to be no end to the people claiming this very expertise, and charging very real $ for this supposed expertise. Yet, many of these self proclaimed experts don't make or distribute films for a living, or if they have, the experience is limited to usually one project, one success. This, in my opinion does not represent expertise.

    I appreciate what you are doing Jon, and see a lot of openness in your approach as well via your blog, and participation in events across the country, and globe. I find your book to be valuable and full of information that transcends the simply anecdotal. Just pointing out that there appears to be a new pack of vultures in town preying upon the fragile hopes, and in many cases, desperation of filmmakers who are looking for genuine help, and real answers...only to be taken for dollars they do not have, charged for information they likely already had, but just lacked the empowerment to act upon.
  • Here, here Gregory!

    Recently I've had several conversations with industry folk about the ridiculous cost of workshops/seminars/consulting.

    People might think that my fees are super low because I work primarily with short filmmakers. Not true. They're low because I find it immoral to charge what essentially amounts to half a person's rent to attend a workshop where they're simply finding all the information they could find online or in a $13 book organized in an 8 hour (or 16 hour) session.

    Yes, all of us 'experts' should certainly be paid for our time - but what I believe to be the foundation that guides my price points is something we all know. Out of 35 workshop attendees perhaps 5 will go on to make a successful film and truly gain financially based on what they learned at our workshop. The other 30 will not. Am I prepared to charge hundreds of dollars when I know most of you will probably NOT make that money back? I'm not.

    And am finding it increasingly more difficult to keep my mouth shut about those who do.

    I've attended several filmmaker workshops (master classes, seminars) and listened to what everyone else had paid upwards of $375 to hear and asked a few attendees during the lunch break if they thought they were getting their money's worth. None said yes.

    Filmmakers *must* research these so-called events thoroughly before spending huge amounts of money that they may never get back.

    Workshop hosts *must* create an affordable way to share their expertise (if in fact they have it) that doesn't limit the attendee demographics. $375 is a significant amount of money for most of the kind of filmmakers who are lining up to attend these workshops.

    If you really have a burning desire to share what you know with the rest of us - cast the widest net possible, and you do this by creating a fee structure that almost anyone could afford, inviting special guest speakers who have had more than one success and using an easily accessible location for the event.
  • Frank Palmer
    "This of course has been caused by the rise of social media and the so called "experts" claiming that having a discussion is so much cooler than actually engaging and getting things done whether its an action or a transaction."

    David, maybe you should stop talking then and start engaging in your own project you claim is going to "change film". What's it been since the Biracy Project started - 6 months? Yikes, I feel sorry for all those paying members you claim to have. I don't know if hanging out on Jeff and Jon's forums blabbing about being an expert is going to get more members paying for non-existant film project.
  • david geertz
    Touche Frank! We actually just closed the screenwriting contest and are about to announce the winner - a female writer who has penned a really great little scifi project that will be named in our next release in the coming days. We've been busy making the platform available for others to use as this is what people asked for first. If you're a paying member in our BETA Frank you would have been informed of this.

    I responded to this post as someone else sent me a message to contribute. We're building our project as planned and at the same time taking suggestions and feedback from filmmakers on what they want from a platform for their campaigns so in our defense Frank we are running two projects/systems at the same time.

    thanks for your comment.
  • Guest
    Thanks for this Jon.

    I'm baffled by such fervent resistance to the notion of a PMD. I suppose the word 'resistance' sums it up, as filmmakers are seemingly called upon to do so much more with so much less for consumers far less receptive when faced with so many more films.

    Despite the fact that filmmaking is a collaborative sport, lots of independent filmmakers insist upon doing almost everything entirely themselves. This may explain the knee-jerk reaction to downplay the role and necessity of a PMD, because it suggests we're still not doing nearly enough already and must now burden ourselves with yet another skillset, more work and a critical responsibility that may very well determine the success or failure of the whole damn endeavor. And to think we used to be able to blame this function on someone else!

    My first PMD credit will appear on my first feature film--a project I didn't write or direct, and as a multi-hyphenate Artist, I never saw this coming! However I truly appreciate the full-time commitment this contribution to commerce affords your content, as it demands strategic consideration to specific tasks in preparing your film for the marketplace--aspects that are often overlooked by the filmmakers themselves in pursuit of Artistic expression in visual storytelling.

    My experience as PMD is one I strongly encourage filmmakers to explore from an entrepreneurial perspective; emotionally detached from filmmaking and altogether focused on the product itself and to who, how, where and when you will communicate your message and sell the Art.

    [Miles Maker is a story author, auteur and thought leader among the new creative class whose dynamic media ventures converge mobile, social and real-time interactions @milesmaker on Twitter. He is the Group Director of @IndieClubNYC, the Executive Producer of @directingActors and a Raindance NYC Affiliate]
  • Thanks Miles. Is there really that much resistance to the concept of the PMD? As a filmmaker, I welcome all the help I can get. I feel that most filmmakers insist on DIY only when there is no one else to help. Perhaps I am wrong, but doing everything yourself is a very hard road to how in this medium.
  • Jon,

    Thank you for taking the time to write this posting. You have attracted discussion from some very bright minds. (Oli, I was thinking the same thing.)

    I am a filmmaker who is in the trenches and I have been for a long while to connect, engage and build my audience. I have also spoken directly to a good number of filmmakers, many of whom will read your posting. We all dream of having our films seen by a wide audience. We also dream of saying goodbye to our day jobs where we can make our livings off our films. More than anything that is what we want.

    In all this discussion, there is one thing that I believe is not appropriately addressed. I fully agree with you about the PMD, that this is a crucial position and one that has long needed identification. What I do not like is the continual use of it in a singular fashion. As David G. touches on below, there is an Noise/Signal ratio that is growing exponentially.

    One PMD, no matter how vital is not going to cut it. Moving forward films are going to need TEAM support to really have a chance.

    Let's look at this another way. Almost every pure independent film I can think of has 1 or 2 people that serves as the 'engine' behind the film. Small films rarely have 3 'engines' that are all pushing, marketing and promoting the film. This is why they continue to be unknown.

    I can name only one pure indie film that has had a Team of 7 behind it. One film that had an engine of 7 and I guarantee that most who read these words will have heard of the film INK. Their team Jamin Winans, Kiowa Winans, Chris Kelly, Jeremy Make, Jessica Duffy, Eme Ikwuakor, & Clark Schaefer. This was the core group behind the film that helped to attract additional key influencers.

    It takes the efforts of many to truly penetrate the marketplace. Thanks again Jon. Big fan of 'Think Outside the Box Office.'
  • David,

    Thanks for your note - I completely agree with you - it will take more than one person. Many of the people involved with the distribution and marketing of a film are likely to be specialists/consutants who work on many films (publicists/social marketing strategists/webmaster, graphic designer). The PMD is designed as the point person. The PMD will most likely need a coordinator, an in house social media person,etc. The PMD will need to supervise a crew of people executing the marketing and distribution of a film. Depending on the size of the project, the number of distribution partners, how much is being done DIY, it could be a crew of two or four or seven or more. It takes a village.
  • Thanks Jon.

    Would love to see you continue to present the PMD as the point person of a TEAM. Believe that is the point you should be hammering home with the PMD position.

    It's all about the 'village' as you say. We will see this emerge significantly in the years to come.
  • Will do!
  • Fantastic article, Jon! I couldn't have said it better myself.

    The lines drawn in the sand seem to be primarily about traditional distribution service providers wanting to protect their territory. Which to me is ridiculous....

    There will always be more than enough filmmakers who are prepared to hire someone else to do it for them.

    There will also always be filmmakers who can't get a good traditional deal and can't afford to hire outside help. These filmmakers are not in the position of "do it your way or do it my way" that Bill describes in his comment. Most of them are in the position of "self-distribution or NO distribution."

    While it's great if filmmakers can find all the help they need, it's still essential that they understand the big picture of self-distribution (and online marketing in particular), so they can make INFORMED decisions regarding the release of their films. For example, while you might make more money in the short term on a single film by having a distributor take on your film, you need to weigh that against the long term potential of building a rapport-based, 1-to-1 relationship with YOUR audience, and OWNING the database of your fans. While it involves more work and the learning curve is steep, this can lead to long term career stability than you're likely to get from a one-off film sale.

    As Jon says, there's no right or wrong answer to all of this - it's very much up to the disposition of the individual filmmaker. But it's the responsibility of each filmmaker to put him or herself in the position of making an informed decision.
  • Jon,

    As a builder of tools for filmmakers I think the strongest thing you need to keep hammering home is the need for the PMD. Part of our educating people on how to use our crowdfunding and crowdsourcing utility is explaining to them that they must have this person in their arsenal if they are to succeed in breaking through the increasing Noise/Signal ratio that is growing exponentially and not actually a good thing for indie films. This of course has been caused by the rise of social media and the so called "experts" claiming that having a discussion is so much cooler than actually engaging and getting things done whether its an action or a transaction. In fact, a filmmaker might do themselves a lot of good by bringing on one or two of these "mavens" to see if they can in fact make a difference (I doubt it but its worth a try).

    There are 2 approaches to making films as I see it and here is how they should be structured.

    1. You make the films for you, by you and only you and you pay you (or not) and no one else has to see it, be in it, or feel obligated to waste time watching it. If this is you....You don't need a PMD.

    2. Any filmmaker that makes a project with more than one person, that is asking people to contribute to a body of work that is controlled by them but exploits others to get it made. It is from this exploitation of people and services that you should feel obligated as a filmmaker to sell your film. Not for you but for the countless people that more than likely busted their humps to see your mumblecore epic come to life. These filmmakers should use a PMD.

    Just my 2 cents.
  • The problem here - that I've run into several times - is the filmmaker who won't let go and seeks to 'preserve his vision' at the expense of the film's sales potential. I was once in a very heated phone argument with a filmmaker who was EXTREMELY upset that I was even contemplating changing the title to his 'masterpiece', much less creating key art with the new title in place to see how it worked with retail buyers.

    Words were exchanged, and most of them were of 4 letters directed at me at peak volume. How dare I mess with his project? Who did I think I was?

    Finally i screamed at the top of my lungs:

    LISTEN - WE CAN DO IT YOUR WAY AND NOT EVEN RECOVER EXPENSES - OR - WE CAN DO IT MINE AND SELL AN EXTRA 10,000 UNITS! WHICH DO YOU WANT?

    Silence.

    He cashed the royalty check.

    Filmmakers, while being very talented, driven people are often their own worst enemy. They can make a film, but they don't know how to sell what they've created. Even if they aren't going to be performing that function in the production, they need to know why certain things are being done.

    Take a class in advertising, and a class in marketing (and not just film marketing).

    You will be a better filmmaker because of it.
  • One small comment specifically on panels: Having been on many panels at festivals and markets worldwide and having worked in both programming and distribution for over a decade, I will say that distribution panels are too often put together by and sometimes moderated by people who don't quite know enough about distribution. I do often register audiences / filmmakers being a bit misguided or only partially guided as a result. Prior to Ted's blog I actually commented on ours ( http://www.thefilmcollaborativ... about the balance of information (including panels) and sources of it. I also think the books, wonderful as some are, form some information are out-of-date as soon as they're printed. And I don't know that non-industry insiders can be as thorough and sharp about distribution as those who have and continue to engage in it daily. So all in all, we recommend a balanced diet of information from varied sources but above all, discern the source and its application to your film, your process, and your goals.
  • Great post, Jon. Your 7th Grade teacher was very polite (and correct) with her 6 P's, but I always prefer the British Army version: Proper Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance...
blog comments powered by Disqus

This site could not have been built without the help and insight of Michael Morgenstern. My thanks go out to him.

Help save indie film and give this guy a job in web design or film!