non-dependent distribution
"If you are afraid of losing something, then you are dependent on it. If you are not afraid, then you are free." Sylvie Guillem
In the last two days I heard a couple of statements that had a similar vibe. Both sparked that “I hadn’t thought about it and it totally makes sense” feeling. Letting the statements sink in opened my mind.
First was “the brain and the mind are not the same” which leads me down that rabbit hole of wondering were does the mind exist. Not a topic for this post. The second was “day and date is dead”. I hadn’t heard someone say that out loud but yeah that concept and practice has gone away quietly. The idea you drop a film on many formats on the same day has left the building, right? We’re back to a world of windowing. Filmmakers don’t really want to dive into digital distribution without having explored (exhausted) the in perso and other eventized opportunities. And the feeling (and reality) is when you drop the film on digital streaming or VOD then that’s it, it’s out there for everyone to see and there isn’t much else you can do, no ways to make seeing the film special again. No way to create urgency. We’re back to drip feeding the release and building building building. Which is great because it gives you time. You can see what’s working and pivot or build according to what you learn.
The slow release is back!
The flipside to this is a longer release that requires more engagement by the filmmakers across the distribution window. So this is going to take more time. Which means either more unpaid work to filmmakers OR, the half full way to see it, an opportunity to make it undeniable that the filmmaker’s time through distribution has to be funded.
On a think-tank zoom this morning I expressed as a producer my need to learn and gather data about how a film makes money in a direct distribution model. As the windows stretch out there's more info to gather. One thing I’m going to do is pour through as many case studies I can gather on recent films and their distribution journey. I want that data because
I want to know what streams of revenue I can expect and over what timeline.
I want to know what the audience reach will be.
These are two key areas of information that can guide me in understanding how much does a film need to be made for and how I can educate funders on what success will look like for any given film. Importantly what does success look like.
Right now I have three films on differing journeys in distribution and one more will be joining this cohort in a few months. For one of the three it’s a truly non-dependent model in that while we have a distributor, it’s a service deal where we’ve hired the distributor. So quick headline, almost no distribution is 100% do it yourself (DIY) because you need a team and you hire people to work on a release. So I refer to it usually as “filmmaker led distribution” or as “direct distribution”. But this morning I also added “non-depentent distribution” to my vocabulary. Ted Hope (and others) have spoken and written plenty about non-dependent film as supposed to independent film, meaning that our future is more secure if we can carve out a non-dependent ecosystem that doesn’t rely on the brand name studios, buyers, distributors and gatekeepers to anoint your film to their slate for it to happen.
Makes sense.
Our service deal release is pretty non-dependent. We’re carving our own path based on our instincts and the wisdom and experience of others on the team who are doing distribution day in day out. But what’s interesting is we can take on their opinions and suggestions or we can do it differently because we ultimately call the shots. There is a level of risk here clearly that comes with funding the exercise so I won’t discount that risk and the barrier to entry that risk creates. We used to offset that risk entirely by signing on with a distributor who pays for that right with a minimum guarantee and then own the distribution rights for a very long time and the right to call the shots. They of course want the filmmaker to be as happy as possible but the bottom line is they know what they want to do and they do it. The filmmaker didn’t take the risk but you also lost the opportunity to have a meaningful say to what happened and also income beyond the MG was going to take a loooooong time to show up, if ever. In a non-dependent future I’m not advocating with doing away with this traditional path. Instead that’s an option for filmmakers AND we have alternatives that are robust and realistic. I want there to be more non-dependent options and paths because that just gives you more freedom in what you create.
We get to decide. That’s what non-dependent is all about.
I like to look at the music industry and what they're doing. They had to endure the floor totally disappearing with the mp3 and file sharing apocalypse and since then have found ways to build things back up. Their robust fan connections are far ahead of what's doing on in our industry. We could really do with a bandcamp for the film...anyone listening out there?
From the recently released, super thorough and seriously needed study from Keri Putnam and team is a nod to how the advent of streaming led to the lost of the “slow release” and the need to a return to windowing. You need to read it.
**above is pulled from the exec summary of the study
You’ve spent years making the thing, there’re plenty of reasons why you should be involved in the distribution. Being creative and being responsible for what happens to your distribution is actually dare I say it, fun. The windowing brings opportunity to engage. For this film’s release we went through a check list of hiring the team as laid out in my previous post on “a path to a template”.
Build the team. While it doesn’t include all these people every time, they do show up consistently. Distributor, Theatrical booker, Publicist, Social Media team / consultant, Sales Agent, Foreign Sales Agent, Poster designer, A/V asset & Graphic creating person(s), Trailer editor, Distribution strategist, Impact consultant, Impact producer, Coordinator, Cheerleaders, Partners, Advocates, Amplifiers (who am I missing? drop in the comments).
One I missed from this list is a merch person. We’re building a direct relationship with the (potential) audience so we’re missing a beat by not bringing them cool things they can also own. A24 has merch. NEON has some here and there. Gary Hustwit does this well. I collect things related to my interests, music, graphic design and more but for films I generally have only DVDs and I haven't bought one in probably 10 years. I don’t have any (holy) Grail items. I’d like to collect film posters but there’s a limit to how many you can display and enjoy. I’d welcome other ways to show my affinity for the films I treasure. This is where the merch comes in. Buttons, tote bags, well curated books...match books even. I'd horde a few "There will be blood" match book sets if someone made them! Maybe a "Drive" keychain? This is fun. Anyways. What that’s going to look like for our film and what cadence for releasing items is all to be figured out. Stay tuned for more and welcome any guidance too!
Finding more paths to non-dependence that’s the next five years.
One quick call back to the Bandcamp thing, in the Keri Putnam report there's an ideal proposal to advantage of the 70m+ indie film audience in the US by creating a streaming platform dedicated to that audience. Well Bandcamp let's go.
**above is pulled from the key findings of the study
**and this is the nod to what I think is a Bandcamp like destination for the film industry
I’d love to know about your non-dependent experiences.