May 13 at 8:06am

Starting Down The Path Towards Filmmaker Empowerment

Today’s guest post is from attorney Steven Beer.  We look forward to many more posts from Steven on this very subject: Filmmaker Empowerment.

Producing independent films requires a broad skill set, including a keen eye for material, masterful team management skills, a facility with numbers, and an understanding of the marketplace. There is only one thing more difficult than producing and making a great independent film: securing a modest return on one’s investment in an independent film.

Why do so many prospective investors (beyond friends and family) roll their eyes when they are asked to invest in independent films? One business manager swears that, generally speaking, independent filmmakers and producers are not capable business people. He believes that they are so focused on making the film that they tend to overlook many key business elements. In support of this assertion, he cited the cursory nature of most business plans, the modest returns typically offered for a risky investment, and the failure to fully establish reliable marketing and distribution plans.

The business manager raised some very good points. The reality is that many producers need to re-think the standard business models for independent films. Let’s begin with the typical business plan, which often contains rehashed discussions about the marketplace and includes outdated success stories like “Slingblade,” “Blair Witch Project,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” and “My Big fat Greek Wedding.” All of these projects were produced many years ago and distributed in a vastly different marketplace. These were all exceptional projects and not necessarily representative of the independent film marketplace, past or present.

An additional question: why do most business proposals today concentrate on the prospect of an “all rights” deal with a hefty minimum guarantee and substantial P&A commitment? By and large, that ship left port several years ago and should be sold as scrap metal for smaller, more efficient vessels that are customizable and scaleable.

We recently participated in the Tribeca Film Festival All Access program. As part of the program, we reviewed business development materials from more than a dozen projects and discussed them with their producers. We were surprised that very few of the business summaries discussed alternative distribution strategies where the producers retain control of all facets of the marketing, promotion, and distribution of their films. Most of the projects discussed the traditional distribution model, which relies on the prospect of a festival bidding war between distributors. Given the overwhelming number of films in recent years where investors did not recoup their principal and the decreasing number of distributers buying films, it is probably time to address the financial realities of today’s marketplace.

Perhaps the best place to start is with production budgets, which tend to be overly generous and based on factors that speak to another distribution economy. For a variety of reasons, the costs of producing a quality independent film have reduced dramatically. Producers would be advised to scrutinize every line item and justify all below and above the line expenses. For instance, do you really need to pay the talent more than the SAG minimums? Will the presence of a particular actor materially increase the value of a film in the international marketplace? In responding to these questions, seek out reliable and timely market sources to confirm tangible value.

We are encouraged when working with filmmakers and producers who understand that reduced budgets accelerate recoupment for a film’s investors. Happy investors participate in additional projects and attract others to invest.

The lesson learned is that we need to evaluate all aspects of the business in order to stay afloat in a challenging marketplace. There are other considerations to discuss. We will address them in this space on a regular basis and encourage you to join in the conversation.

Steven C. Beer is a shareholder in the international entertainment practice of Greenberg Traurig’s New York office. Steven has served as counsel to numerous award-winning writers, directors and producers, as well as industry-leading film production, film finance and film distribution companies.


  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print


  • I believe that they are so
    focused on making the film that they tend to overlook many key business
    elements. Thanks mate for nice allocation. 
     

  • 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.
  • anonymous
    Keep in mind that for many of, and perhaps the majority of, U.S. low budget independent art films, films that have moved us and challenged us over the years, if they had had to rely on realistic business, marketing, and distribution plans, they would have never gotten made. "Reliable marketing and distribution plans" are the mark of formulaic Hollywood studio films, not unconventional indie films.
  • Gotta disagree, somewhat strongly, with you Jon, respectfully. Don't want to use the plumbing analogy, fair enough, although the point with that is Plumbers don't give away their work for free, why should artists? You don't get to go into a supermarket or restaurant and have a steak on the arm, before you decide if you're paying for it. In the end, very few industries let you sample the product before buying it, and for those that do, it's the seller who decides to do that. If the buyer takes it without being asked to, it's called theft.

    People spend years and years of their lives getting films off the ground, and with one push of a key stroke, someone takes it for nothing.

    Now, I have actually Produced another feature that did infact benefit from illegal downloading, from the standpoint of becoming a viral hit (pretty huge actually), and yet 3 years later, STILL hasn't fully recouped it's money. Sure, it may benefit someone making a NO budget film, but when you talk about the 6 or 7 figure feature, it's 9 out of 10 times going to hurt being pirated, more than help. The lifeline of making money in the indie market was DVD sales..that's all but extinct now. Also foreign, but in markets like China, illegal downloading has crippled those markets too. VOD is a way for the industry to start to compensate for those revenues, but again, if everyone is downloading illegally, who needs to pay for VOD?

    And the point is Jon, I have a real distributor for my film, so those costs you discussed are in play, and then on top, I am losing all those sales from downloading. And then if those who pirate trash the film on the net, you've been slammed twice!

    If you're a filmmaker Jon, not sure how you can support that, but do respect your opinion.
  • Robbie, you can't analogize film with plumbing. Plumbers can't put out a copy of a toilet bowl for people to use for free with the option to buy a high resolution version with DVD extras.

    Film pirating is free marketing. If you look at what you'd call lost sales revenue from pirating and then compare that to the costs of traditional distribution, P&A, 30% to 50% distributor cuts with possibly exclusive copyright ownership then you can see how valuable pirating is to indie film. It is absolutely golden for complete unknowns who's best fate would be for people to mass copy their films around the world and make them notorious.
  • Thank you Doghouse! While Mr. Beer makes some interesting and valid points, one must wonder if he is slashing his ridiculous fees for creating a PPM's, like he wants actors to. Yes, there needs to be tightening of the belt in budgets, but please have him email me when HE does too. Still reeling from an early venture with his former company.

    The internet is part of the new wave of filmmaking success, but the next thing that needs to be monitored and figured out, is the internet and more specifically, the crippling of the DVD market through illegal downloading. It amazes me that it's okay to do this, with film and music, however I have not met the plumber, housing contractor, or Supermarket chain that lets you come and have just take/have things for free. Why in the entertainment field?

    But keep doing what you love people, becuase when pulled off, there's nothing finer! Just be wise about it.
  • In my personal opinion, Doghouse, perhaps your statement "there were a few spectacular successes 10 or 15 years ago, but they’ve never been repeated" is inaccurate. There is always "lightning in a bottle." In fact, personally, I'm convinced that Blair Witch was repeated just a few months ago with Paranormal Activity.

    But to the point of Steven's post, one cannot build a business plan on presuming "lightning in a bottle."

    However, and Ted has mentioned this, there is no class of indie film investors. In fact, it's my opinion, that in the weird gambling mentality of investors, there is an insurmountable and unreasonable prejudice against independent filmmakers.

    Instead, investors are frequently bilked by smooth-talking pie-in-the-sky shysters (yet another one went to prison yesterday) who know how to wear polyester pants, blue suits, red ties and say bullshit through shit-eating smiles in order to extract millions (yes, the crooks always get MILLIONS) from those pathetic people with more money than brains. They hate indie filmmakers, but shovel cash into the crooked pockets of the Madoffs of this world.

    Creativity scares the shit out of them. They don't want to hear creativity; they want to hear lies.

    I went to the other extreme of what Steven described. My business plan was thoroughly researched, reasonable in its assumptions, justified its numbers with references, broke down every element of film marketing, and created a cash-flow that forecast every dollar. It showed failure, reasonable success, and spectacular success.

    Know what the reaction was? "Too MUCH detail."

    It's NOT the business plan, friends. Indie filmmakers are simply not the polyester-clad crooks that are required in order to extract money from investors.

    If someone could dress me up in polyester pants, a blue suit and red tie --shudder--, and show me how to do the bullshit-through-shit-eating-smile presentation, then I'd finally get my movie made.

    My movie...from a script that has been uniquely and shockingly publicly praised as "a movie that must be made" by a solid member of the indie film biz.

    As it turns out, that, and $1.50, will get me a tall regular coffee at Starbucks.
  • Kyle P
    Jared

    A lot of folks here have probably been googling Children of Invention, and wishing them the best, since the producer posted some weeks ago on their decision not to sign with a distributor.

    Don't know how their DVD sales total, but have you followed that film's theatrical gross? In what sense exactly did the makers of this film turn the market on its head?

    This is not comment on the film itself, or even on the abilities of those who marketed it. But a theatrical run which barely breaks $10,000 is not usually regarded as a success, even for a film which costs nothing to make, which does not seem to be the case here.
  • Why is this industry, arguably the single largest market poised to take advantage of incredible technological advancements (second perhaps only to the gaming industry) still so resistant to change? Like Sheri Candler, I'm shocked to hear the fogies at Tribeca are still living in the 1990s.

    What's the future? Reach out to the future independent filmmakers directly - at the University, Conservatory, or theater where they live, and talk up Truly Free Film, and the cause, as much as possible.

    There are successes out there: google "Children of Invention" - an indy film whose theatrical run was financed on the back of social media-publicized DVD sales. It takes visionaries like Tze Chun to turn the market on its head!
  • doghouse
    And the business plan says exactly what?

    - less than .1% of these films show any ROI

    - there are currently no thriving models for independent film distribution, but the internet is kind of promising

    - there were a few spectacular successes 10 or 15 years ago, but they've never been repeated. If there's a formula, nobody knows it, including the producers of prior successes

    - we've budgeted for stars, because stars are essential to the commercial prospects of an independent film

    - we're paying SAG minimums, because there's little correlation between the presence of stars and the commercial success of independent films. Besides, if an actor isn't prepared to take a salary reduction, we won't hire him.

    - we're keeping the budget as low as possible, whatever the cost to dramatic illusion, because it's next to impossible to recoup any money. So you have nothing to worry about!
    ===========

    There is, however, one viable business plan for independent film: become a $300-$500 per hour professional -- lawyer or accountant. Then you'll do fine.

    This is becoming mind-boggling. Or am I simply living in the wrong alternative universe?
  • Great post. Best part was when he questioned if a film really needs "name talent" and questioned if filmmakers need to pay more than SAG minimum. For me, pursuing my next project, I like to hear this. Some people said that I couldn't make a film for less than 1-2 million and make the money back. I disagree, I think staying under 1 million, using creativity, and especially on the distribution end can make a plan more viable. Filmmakers don't realize their options. There are many outlets out there that need good content. Do research, many times you can work out something yourself or get a sales agent to do it for you. Sales agent is better than an all-or-nothing deal.
  • I am astounded and disheartened that he was still experiencing this naivete at Tribeca, just last month. I had thought the word was well out on the street that budgets have to be lower, research has to be done, marketing and distro has to be part of the plan and funded. Man, I thought we were making headway and then I hear that! Whew. Ok Steven, power on.
  • Andrew
    A very welcome post. Looking forward to hearing you develop this at length. The more specific the better, thanks. I am guilty of the same, and am aware of my mistakes even as I make them. But you're right, so much time spent on just getting the film done and doing it well.
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!