More Indie Movie Makers Realizing The Benefits Of Releasing Movies Free Online
from the good-for-them dept
There really isn't that much new in this recent article in Time Magazine about indie film makers releasing their movies for free online. The article covers some of the more well-known cases of filmmakers doing so. But what's interesting is to see this in such a mainstream publication like Time. Now, since we've already discussed most of the examples used in the article, I know what the critics will say immediately: that none of these count because they weren't huge multi-million dollar successes like Avatar. But, of course, that's the wrong comparison. These are indie filmmakers, and the comparison should be to where they would likely be right now if they had not released the film for free online. In most cases, it seems quite clear that they would have a lot less attention, a lot fewer people having seen the movie, and -- for those who implemented smart business models to go with the free release -- would have made a lot less money.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, free, movies, promotions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Soon, the middleman could be a thing of the past. And it may only be a matter of time before movie theatres — popcorn and all — are on the way out, too.
Obviously I disagree with that - the roles of cinemas and middlemen are changing, but plenty are embracing change, just like the filmmakers in the article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gosh! The author sounds just like Mike. :) Using a few blips to pronounce a trend!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The story says you are in the green to the extent of $55K. Is that true? I remember reading on this very site you are still in the red about a couple of hundred grand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"There really isn't that much new in this recent article..."
I have it on authority that shortly after this, Merriam was sucked into a parallel universe, and while history does not fully document this, to prevent any re-occurrence, I don't recommend you research this. Besides, all the information you require can be found on this blog.
For more information on this concept, see page 782 of Mike's Book "Approaching Infinity"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free Psychology
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, as someone else mentioned, the Time article suggests you are 55k to the good, yet all the stories that we have seen here pretty much have you crying the starving artist blues. Which one is right?
From the article, I can take only this: Plenty of people are making movies they are passionate about, but that have little hope of being commercially viable. Only through giving the product away and praying that people do something else (buy the proverbial t-shirt) do they have any hope of making their money back. In rare cases, it would appear to be a profitable enterprise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Still not grasping any of Mike's actual points when he talks about this, are you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Mike takes one or two "blips" and then use logical reasoning to point to what kind of trend this might be a sign of. This is a very valid method in forecasting of the future. Forecasting of the future is in many ways a creative task, often the same as actually creating the future.
The example you point at in the Times article is nothing of the sort. From the "blips" the article writer draws the logical conclusion that the middleman's role is diminishing and might eventually vanish. From that the author use a logically false reasoning based on the assumption that if a trend points to the destruction of one prominent feature of the present, then all other prominent features of the present will also be destroyed. And based on this the article writer concludes, logically falsely, that theaters will have to go too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
THIS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The real problem
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Free Psychology
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Ok, since you admit a certain amount of cognitive retardation, I'm happy to help:
Mike's point is that there is a clear (and effective) business model surrounding the concept of "giving away" content. While a simple (very simple) analysis would suggest that there is no profit in giving away a product that cost you something to make, the (rather old) idea of a "loss leader" comes into play.
Sure, it cost you something, but you may not be able to get much for it, while if you give it away, you attract a ton of people who are willing to pay for something else that is related.
In the Star Wreck example, a little over 20 grand was spent creating a product that if shopped to distributors would have arguably resulted in a loss. But when that same product was given away, it created a shitstorm of interest in *other* products that the creator sold, to the tune of over 400 grand. I submit this is a much larger number than the creators would have managed from the "make it/market it/sell it" model.
Grasping any of this yet?
You're welcome.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL, you mean 'spin rag'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]