Hollywood Chamber Of Commerce Trademark Bullies Kevin Smith's Podcast Over Hollywood Sign

from the likelihood-of-confusion? dept

The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce is somewhat infamous for its constant trademark bullying over the famed Hollywood sign (you know the one). Its latest target is apparently the Hollywood Babble-On podcast that is done as a live show each week by radio/podcast guy Ralph Garman and filmmaker/entertainer Kevin Smith. Before the show this past weekend, Garman had tweeted out that it might be the last Hollywood Babble-On ever. In the opening minutes of their latest episode, Garman explains that they've received a cease and desist letter from the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce "re: unauthorized use of Hollywood stylized mark and Hollywood Walk of Fame mark."

While I haven't seen the full cease-and-desist letter, from what Garman said on the podcast, the issue is so ridiculous that the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce should be called out for blatant trademark bullying. You see, while this is the normal logo/image promoting the podcast:

At times, they've used other images, such as this one:

It's that image that is apparently part of the problem (even though it's not clear how often it was used). The Chamber of Commerce is using the Hollywood style lettering, which is an approximation of the famous Hollywood sign, and the star behind their heads (which it apparently believes is an implied reference to the stars on Hollywood's walk of fame), to argue that this is unauthorized use of their marks. Some trademark lawyers will likely disagree, but this seems like classic trademark bullying.

If you're unfamiliar with the podcast (and I'll confess to being a loyal listener from Episode 1 through the latest, and got to see the show once live at Kevin's invitation after he was on our podcast a few years ago), it's a fun (frequently not safe for work) show looking at some highlights from the week's entertainment news, mixed in with a series of re-occurring bits, frequently involving Garman's rotating cast of impressions. In short, it's two funny guys, who are both in show business and have been for many years, goofing off talking about show business, frequently mocking some of the crazier news stories coming out of that business.

In other words, there's no way in hell that anyone in their right mind thinks that this podcast is officially sanctioned by "Hollywood" as some sort of official Hollywood product. The whole thing is kind of gently mocking some of Hollywood's sillier foibles. Indeed, this seems like a perfect use case for the old standby in trademark law: the "moron in a hurry" test. And, to make it more relevant to the hobbies of choice of Ralph and Kevin, I think it could be argued that neither a drunk, nor a stoned "moron in a hurry" would ever face even the slightest "likelihood of confusion" that Hollywood somehow had endorsed the podcast, just because it briefly had images showing slightly askew letters and a star.

It remains one of the more frustrating aspects of trademark law that so many people believe that it means you get total control over the marks in question. That's not how it's supposed to work. It's only in cases where there is a likelihood of confusion that people would be confused and believe that the mark holder is behind (or otherwise endorses) the products and services in question. And here, that seems pretty difficult to believe. Of course, rather than fight these kinds of things out, it's frequently much easier to just pay up, which may be what the lawyers for the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce are banking on.

Filed Under: hollywood, hollywood babble-on, hollywood sign, kevin smith, likelihood of confusion, moron in a hurry, podcast, ralph garman, trademark, trademark bullying, walk of fame

DailyDirt: Shake It Off, Shake It Off...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Our podcast with Kevin Smith is one of my personal favorites. It might seem obvious to some people that you can't look around for affirmation to keep you motivated, and that haters are always going to be around with words of discouragement. Critics will have some valid points, but nobody is perfect -- and you just need to keep trying things until it works (with the exception that if your catchphrase is 'hail Hydra' -- maybe you're going down the wrong path).

• PewDiePie, aka Felix Kjellberg, is a YouTube star making an estimated $7.4 million -- and he's responded to his critics who think he's overpaid. Genuine responses are usually the best (unless of course you're prone to sticking your foot in your mouth), and PewDiePie's serious-but-still-lighthearted explanation of his income to his haters seems to strike the right balance of honesty and humility. [url]
• Brandon Bowen posted a video on Vine that went viral -- for "blocking out the haters" with plastic spoons over his eyes. Maybe not the best example of how to deal with haters, but it got around to a few million folks for a quick laugh. [url]
• Scott Cawthon, the creator of Five Nights at Freddy's, wrote back to his critics to acknowledge his flaws and tell everyone that "focusing on someone else's failure or success is the wrong way to live." Basically, go create something of your own -- tearing down other people's work just for the sake of doing so isn't helping anyone. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: brandon bowen, felix kjellberg, haters, inspiration, kevin smith, motivation, pewdiepie, scott cawthon

Rather Than Go After Fan For Making Podcast Better, Kevin Smith Asks Him To Help Out

from the that's-how-it's-done dept

These days, we hear way too many stories of content creators absolutely flipping out about fans enhancing their work in some way. Most recently, we were quite disappointed to see the "Real Calvin and Hobbes" -- a fan site that superimposed the comic strip images on real photographs that matched the original scenes -- get shut down due to aggressive lawyering. So, we're always happy to see artists, who really seem to "get it," recognize that when fans build on the things you've done, it's because they're fans and want to do more with the experience, and to share it with others. That's why it was quite interesting, in listening to the latest episode of the always awesome Hollywood Babble-On podcast with Ralph Garman and Kevin Smith, that they had a revealing discussion after a fan emailed in about a plan to release "enhanced" versions of the podcasts on YouTube.

If you're not a fan of the podcast, it involves the two hosts, in front of a live audience, discussing show business, hilariously. One part of the show is that it includes images and videos that they comment on. Many of these are from the week's news, but there are other amusing segments, such as "shit that should not be" in which they highlight a clip from a film each week where someone screwed up and allowed something into the film that shouldn't have been there (e.g., you can see the camera crew, or someone in the background is doing something stupid). When listening to the podcast, it can sometimes be a bit strange, since you can't see the images and videos that they use. To deal with that, they also put up all the images and videos on the site when the podcast goes live. I'll usually try to check it out sometime the following week.

So, in this latest episode, a fan emailed to say that he was going to put together "enhanced" versions of the podcast on YouTube, in which he'd insert the images and videos at the appropriate points so that if you listened to it via YouTube, you could take a look when the visual stuff comes up. Not that useful if you're listening while driving or something but if you're just, say, listening at your desk, it might make for a nice alternative. It's somewhat amusing to hear the reactions of Garman and Smith as they walk through this, and I actually think that Smith's reaction is the kind of thought process in action that many creative folks go through when they realize that people are doing something with their stuff: the first thought is -- instinctually -- to be concerned about someone else doing something with their stuff, but then the quick realization that, wait, this is a good thing, and if it's a good thing, maybe they should team up. So, within a few seconds, it goes from Smith somewhat jokingly suggesting that this is "stealing" to him saying that he now wants to give the guy money each week to do the same thing:

Garman: Doug did a very cool thing. He says I'm going to post uncut episodes of Hollywood Babble-On on YouTube. But I'm going to stick whatever pictures and videos are included in the show throughout the course of it.... What he's done is he's run the audio underneath and then laid all the stuff on top of it so you can watch it on YouTube in one sitting.

Smith: It would be better if he did it on our channel, rather than stealing our content and putting it on his channel. And just because he's putting our fucking pictures under it as well, that seems like theft to me, no? Especially since he's putting it on his YouTube channel, if you get enough hits and stuff, they'll give you some fucking money and shit. I mean, I'm not one of those cats who's like 'don't bootleg' because I used to get bootlegs back in the day... but I'm still alive, bitch. This is all I got is this fucking Babble-On show. Don't take this away from me and Ralph.

Garman: Doug, you'll be hearing from our lawyers, was what I meant to say.

Smith: Yeah, just do it for our channel. Do it for our channel and will throw him a couple bucks every week. I love that shit, man. Just do it for us.

Garman: Alright.

Smith: I'll give him shit in advance. I'll give him the podcast in advance so that by the time the podcast drops, the YouTube episode can drop as well.... There's no point in fighting it. I mean, you can't fight the creative urge. This dude loves our art so much...

Garman: Well, he likes to watch it on his Xbox which has a YouTube app, so he can sit there...

Smith: Bingo. He's loves our shit. It makes him want to make his own shit. And you don't want to stifle that and be like "fucking don't do that or we'll sue you." What you want to do is fucking recruit him and be like "help us do it" and fucking work together and shit....

And... boom, this week's episode (the one where they discuss this very idea) comes complete with an enhanced YouTube version that is posted on Smith's own Seesmod YouTube channel. If you want to hear the actual discussion transcribed above, it's at about 28:12 in the video below: Of course, this is hardly the first time Smith has done something like this. We've discussed a number of cool things he's done to connect with fans in the past. In fact, the latest movie that Smith has had (something) of a hand in, Jay & Silent Bob's Super Groovy Cartoon Movie! was actually directed by Steve Stark, a guy that Smith met via Twitter, after Stark animated some of another Smith podcast, the Smodcast. That led to a collaboration in which Stark was hired to produce more animations, and eventually to direct that movie.

To many of us, of course, this kind of thing makes quite a lot of sense. If your fans are doing awesome stuff with your stuff, see if there are ways to work together to make it better for everyone. And, yet, it still seems like too many people instead stick with the instinctual reaction of "that's against the law!" and immediately call the lawyers. How much more interesting a world would it be if more people looked for the upside when fans embrace the artwork they love?

Update: Kevin Smith stopped by to provide some more detail, including explaining that, coincidentally, people working with him were already working on something like this, which is why they put up this clip, and it's not actually by the guy who had emailed him, but he's still reaching out. Um, and he also says that Techdirt is mentioned in Clerks III.

Filed Under: copyright, enhanced podcast, hollywood babbleon, kevin smith, ralph garmin, working together, youtube

Hollywood Accounting: How A $19 Million Movie Makes $150 Million... And Still Isn't Profitable

from the a-ham-sandwidch dept

We've written about the wonders of Hollywood accounting before. It's a series of tricks pulled by Hollywood studios to make most of their movies look unprofitable, even when they're making a ton of money. The details can be complex, but a simplified version is that every studio sets up a new "shell" company for each movie -- and that company is specifically designed to lose money. The studio gives that company the production budget (the number you usually see) and then also agrees to pay for marketing and related expenses above and beyond that. Both of those numbers represent (mostly) actual cash outlays from the studio and are reasonable to count as expenses. Then comes the sneaky part: on top of all that, the studios charge the "movie company" a series of fees for other questionable things. Many of these fees involve no real direct expense for the studio, but basically pile a huge expense onto the income statement and ensure that the studio keeps getting all of the movie income -- rather than having to share the profits with key participants -- long after the movie would be considered profitable under regular accounting rules.

Here's a hypothetical example of how this could work in practice, using round numbers just to make the point (these aren't directly accurate numbers, but the concept is). A studio funds A Movie with a production budget of $100 million. It sets up AMovieCo Inc. and gives it the production budget money. The studio then spends another $50 million on marketing and puts that down as an expense as well -- though, with some of the big studios, some of this money involves paying itself for advertising on its own properties. Still, even if we assume that's real money spent, you might think that AMovieCo now needs to make back $150 million to be profitable. But... the studio (which, again, controls AMovieCo completely) then tacks onto all of that, say, a $250 million "distribution fee." Now, while there may be some money spent on actually distributing the film, the number is almost completely bogus, and much higher than the actual expense for the studio. Very little actual money needs to change hands here -- it's just a fee on the books (a fee they are effectively charging to themselves). And it's not just "distribution" but a variety of additional charges. On top of that, the studio may then charge "interest" on that money, even though it's really just lending money to itself. What it all means is that rather than becoming profitable at ~$150 million (the actual money spent), AMovieCo now needs to earn over $400 million before anyone with a cut of the profits sees an additional dime from the movie, thanks to completely imaginary accounting entries on the books.

Over on Kevin Smith's (really, really, fascinating) Smoviemakers podcast, Smith recently interviewed filmmaker Scott Derrickson, who has made a name for himself in the horror film world. The whole interview is fantastic and well worth listening to, starting with part one. However, right at the beginning of part two, Derrickson reveals how he effectively got shafted on one of his most well known films, The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

Scott Derrickson (SD): It made $75 [million] domestic and $150 [million] worldwide...

Kevin Smith (KS): Nice. You're a true filmmaker, you know exactly what your movies made everywhere...

SD: Hellllll yeah.

KS: It's a badge of honor.

SD: And to all the young filmmakers listening, I had 5% of the net of that movie. That was in my contract. And it cost $19 million. And it made $150 million worldwide. There's no net. That's how movie math works.

KS: So even you were not above being screwed by the system.

SD: I told my attorney, the next time you're negotiating my net profit for a movie, ask for a ham sandwich instead.

KS: 'Cause you'll get something.

SD: 'Cause I'll get something [laughter]

Basically, it's the same story as always. The net doesn't exist... but because of the extra massive "fees" the studio tacks on, it makes back many times its money before it even has to go anywhere near paying the writer and director to whom it promised 5%.

Related to this, it comes as no surprise that later in the podcast, Derrickson talks about his recognition that the real future in movies is being able to make them much more cheaply, and outside of studio control. He talks about being influenced by the movie Monsters, which was made for a few hundred thousand dollars, but which he notes would have probably cost a studio $50 million to make. At that point, he realized that to survive in this business, he had to be able to learn to make movies much more cheaply:

SD: The other thing that was happening at that time, was I was watching the business change dramatically.... The movie that was a paradigm shift for me was the sci-fi movie Monsters. Have you seen that movie?

KS: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

SD: It's this great sci-fi movie where this guy, for $800,000 and his little barebones crew, with a small digital camera, made a movie that would have cost Warner Bros. $50 million to make.... He was one of the first of this new generation who grew up with his laptop. He did like 250 visual effects in the movie on his own laptop. And he made a $50 million movie for $800,000. I saw that happening. I saw what Jason Blum was doing with the Paranormal Activity movies and I said, you know what, the business is changing and you gotta evolve or die. And so part of my interest in doing a movie so small is that I want to be a part of what's happening right now. And I want to be a front runner. I want to be good at it.

They then discuss his new movie, Sinister, which had a $3 million budget (which shocks Smith, who insists it looks like a movie that's much more expensive). Of course, in many ways, this goes back to the discussion we've been having here for many, many years -- responding to the old school movie studio guys, who demand that we answer how could they possibly continue to make $200 million movies. One answer, which we've pointed out time and time again, is that the question is the wrong one. Any business should be asking how it can make its product profitably -- not how it can keep its costs high. No one in the tech industry asks "how can we continue to make $5,000 computers?" They ask "how can we make profitable computers" and one answer is to make the product more efficiently. It's great to see filmmakers like Derrickson not just get that, but then celebrate what that means for him artistically and financially as well.

SD: I want what matters to matter to me.... Knowing that I had final cut in the movie, knowing that's what it was about, I've never had more fun or been more relaxed while making a movie, because I just wasn't worried about how it would do. I'm making this movie because when it's done I'm gonna see it.... I think a lot of filmmakers go through the experience.... you have that difficult studio experience.... you come out of that experience, and it's not just that 'if you die on a swords, it's gonna be my sword,' it's that thing that 'I'm going to make something that's 100% pure. I'm just going to make something 100% pure...'

In the last few years we've been hearing and seeing similar things from a number of filmmakers, recognizing that perhaps the challenges that the movie industry has faced have been self-imposed in large degrees. The industry got used to doing things one way and have had trouble adapting. But, of course, the actual artists and creators figure this stuff out and they adapt... even while the big studios still play their accounting tricks. And have no fear, with a movie this cheaply made, Derrickson notes that if the movie does okay, it could make him "rich" based on the way he structured the deal this time around. He teamed up with Blumhouse Productions (who backed Paranormal Activity) and while they're using a traditional distributor (which anyone still has to do for a real theatrical release), the economics this time around are quite different than for a film where a major MPAA studio is playing the usual accounting tricks.

Filed Under: hollywood, hollywood accounting, kevin smith, profits, scott derrickson

Making Movies 20 Years Ago vs. Today: A World Of Difference

from the two-podcasts dept

I recently listened to two very (very) different podcasts, but which really highlighted something kind of amazing: it's so much easier to make a movie today. We're talking a completely different world. Of course, most of us knew that already, and it's why we see things like many more movies being made today than ever before in the past. But between these two podcasts, what's driven home is how much the old system relied on gatekeepers, and how little the new system needs such gatekeepers.

The first podcast was a recent episode of Kevin Smith & Scott Mosier's Smodcast, in which Smith digs (deep) into his archives to find a ton of old voicemail recordings that give you a taste of the process of making his original film, Clerks and actually getting it picked up and shown in theaters (it comes after the discussion of the war against sharks at the beginning, which is entertaining too...). At first I just thought it was kind of awesome to get that kind of behind-the-scenes look (or, listen) to all the people that had to "appreciate" Clerks before it was picked up by Miramax and became that indie film classic it shall forever remain. It's amazing to listen to all of those voicemails and go back 20 years and learn about what happened. But there are all sorts of people who have to get involved and become boosters of the film. Smith and Mosier were lucky that one influential guy caught the movie at their original showing in NY, and then he helped get a writeup by an influential reporter, who helped get others interested in the film, but each step of the way, a champion had to say "hey, you should send a tape to so-and-so."

But then I thought about just how different the world is today. While people can go through gatekeepers, we see an entire new generation of filmmakers (and other content creators) who don't need to hope that someone influential catches the flick in its only theater showing. They don't have to find "the" guy who sold indie films to studios. They don't have to find "the" reporter who writes about indie films. Yes, some of those things can help, but they can now use sites like YouTube and Vimeo to post the work (or snippets of it) online for free. They can use social media to build a following. They can use Kickstarter and TopSpin and other tools to make money. It's an entirely different world.

And that point was driven home when I listened to the very next podcast in my playlist, from Alec Baldwin's Here's the Thing podcast, in which he interviews two documentary filmmakers who basically made (controversial) films on effectively no budget at all. While the types of movies are quite different from Clerks, listening to the two podcasts, one after the other, you realize that the documentary filmmakers probably wouldn't even have attempted to make those films two decades ago.

It's an amazing new world for creative arts, with tremendous new opportunity. Those who are complaining that things are worse these days seem to be living in an alternate reality. If things are "worse," it's only because there may be more competition for attention -- which is a real challenge. But there's so much more opportunity and so many fewer gatekeepers needed, that it's difficult not to be excited for the kinds of creativity we're seeing today and will inevitably see in the future.

Filed Under: alec baldwin, clerks, documentaris, history, kevin smith, movie making, movies

If You Behave Like Your Own Fans Despise You, They Probably Will

from the it's-dead,-jim dept

So we recently had a bit of a debunking of writer Ewan Morrison's nearly 100% factually incorrect discussion of what the failure of ACTA in Europe means. Morrison made a few responses on his Twitter feed -- bizarrely claiming (for example) that I'm wrong about the DMCA and that it wasn't celebrated by the entertainment industry and decried by the tech industry. There's no way to respond to that other than to laugh. It's not hard to find historical accounts that show techies were protesting against the DMCA and trying to fight it in court. Morrison is flat out wrong on this one.

But what's more, is that he goes on to raise a very common trope we've heard from copyright maximalists: claiming that this is all about people not wanting to support artists they like, and that this is because they're jealous of artists. As Ewan stated in a series of tweets:

What amazes me is the vehemence towards the idea that there might be people who make a living out of their art.

A lot has to be said for the theory that this is based on jealousy and resentment. Do consumers actually despise artists?

While, perhaps, there are some people who are jealous of artists, it's hard to see any truth to those claims on a widespread basis. In fact, as we've detailed over the years, fans seem to be absolutely ecstatic when they find out that artists they really love are successful. Let's take two recent examples. First up, Louis CK and his direct to fan offering that involved him being really cool to his fans and connecting with them -- and then asking them, politely, to pay for his video special (which was inexpensive and had no DRM). And it worked. Less than two weeks later and he'd made $1 million... and his fans loved it. They weren't jealous. They didn't have any resentment towards him making a living (and a super comfortable one at that). They were thrilled.

Next up. Amanda Palmer and her Kickstarter campaign. She sought to raise $100,000 for her latest album release... and ended up with $1.2 million. And once again, her fans were thrilled about how much money she made. There wasn't jealousy or resentment. Instead, they celebrated both online and off (there was a big party in Brooklyn, and it appears that party is continuing over into her current tour).

Those are just two datapoints, obviously, but we're actually seeing it more and more. Jonathan Coulton making a ton of money. Trent Reznor making a ton of money. Mathew Ebel making a living. Corey Smith making millions. Jill Sobule doing an early version of fan funding. Kevin Smith bucking the traditional way of doing things and making lots of money elsewhere. Erin McKeown crowdfunding her new album. Joe Konrath making lots of money by shifting to self-publishing. Paulo Coehlo watching his sales jump massively every time he "pirated" his own works.

Over and over and over again we see the same pattern. Fans don't resent artists they love making money. In fact, they quite often are so invested in the success of those artists, that they get vicarious joy from the success of those artists. I've seen no evidence that true fans are jealous of artists or that fans get upset at the idea of artists making a living. Quite the opposite. They seem to celebrate such success stories, because it's really awesome.

So where's the disconnect? If you start going through folks like the ones listed above, and how they relate to their fans, you find a pretty common pattern. These are artists that really truly connect with their fans. As Amanda Palmer told us, you have to build an army of supporters, day by day, connecting one by one. This is hard work. But go through the list above and look at some of the things they do to reach out to fans and connect with them. Look at the levels they go to in order to be truly open, human and awesome for their fans.

And you begin to see the pattern.

The artists who truly connect... their fans support them as far as they possibly can. There's no jealousy about their success. There's no one who wants to somehow deny them a living. It's the exact opposite.

The problem, then, is that for some artists who fail at this, it's difficult for them to understand why. They think their content is good. They think they're nice to their fans. And maybe they're right. But, for whatever reason (and sometimes it's just something that's in the air), that connection didn't stick. People don't support them. It's not because they are jealous. It's not because they want to deny them a living. In many ways, it's worse and much harder for those artists to come to grips with: it's because people just don't care that much about the artist. Not because of "piracy." Not because of some moral failings. The artist just failed to "build an army." Sometimes it's because the artist just isn't that good. Sometimes it's because the artist doesn't treat fans right (and "blaming" fans or calling them "criminals" or calling them "unethical" and wrapping stuff up with DRM is a pretty good way to not treat fans right). Yes, in some cases, the failure can be self-induced, but it seems in those cases we see the most vocal lashing out by the artists who simply refuse to do any sort of self-reflection.

So, can we finally dispense with this myth that the great masses out there don't want to support artists? Or that they're jealous of their success? If that was the case, we wouldn't see the examples we see above. We wouldn't see people exclaiming all over Twitter how much they love people like Louis CK and Amanda Palmer, and how freaking thrilled they are when they see the stories of the massive success of their fan-friendly approaches. But we do see that with those artists and many more, because they learned the secret: connect at a really deep level with fans, and those fans won't be jealous. They'll support you wherever you want to go. Happily. And they will shout it from the mountains for others to hear. Treat your fans right, and they give it right back to you.

Filed Under: acta, amanda palmer, connect with fans, corey smith, dmca, erin mckeown, ewan morrison, jill sobule, jonathan coulton, kevin smith, louis ck, mathew ebel, trent reznor

Kevin Smith's Approach To Competing With Piracy: Give Away A Ton, Then Sell Stuff That Can't Be Pirated

from the voila dept

We've written about filmmaker/entertainer/podcaster/author Kevin Smith quite a bit here on Techdirt -- and for a very good reason. He seems to absolutely understand how to adapt to the modern internet era -- and thrive in doing so. As he likes to say, he's much more focused on being where the puck is going, rather than where it is (or where it's been). Along those lines, we've mentioned in the past that he's publicly stated that he believes piracy leads to converts, and those new fans are likely to support him down the road.

Recently he expanded a bit on how he "competes" with piracy. In a all around awesome AMA on Reddit the inevitable question came up about his thoughts on piracy and he busted out a simple explanation for how to "compete" with piracy (even if compete is the wrong word here): he connects with fans by giving away a ton of stuff for free, and then gives them a reason to buy by making things that he wants to sell special, unique experiences that you really can't pirate.

Here's my approach...

I try to give away as much as possible. At SModcast.com, we've got thousands of hours of my best work, as well as the funniest shit you'll ever hear: My true life's work. And we give it away free.

Tomorrow, we celebrate the First Birthday of S.I.R. - SModCo Internet Radio. http://smodcast.com. To celebrate, we'll be launching S.I.T. on YouTube - SModCo Internet Television. All of it is free.

So when I do present my audience with something that requires payment? I try to make it more special. That's why I toured with Red State, rather than simply stick the movie out there in theaters alone. Anyone can access any movie digitally once it's in theaters; I accept that. But they can't digitally access me unless they're in the room.

Instead of trying to fight change, I like to adapt and figure out how to thrive in an ever-changing global economy. And as much as I like to head where the puck is going, you sometimes have to play the ball where it lays.

Having followed Kevin's career for quite some time, it's pretty clear that he's completely internalized these concepts. It comes natural to him, and it's great to see.

Of course, we've been preaching from the same basic book for years, with the point being that you can use free to your advantage. It does not mean (as some people falsely accuse) that we think "everything should be free!" It's all about understanding what things are useful when they're free, and what things you can reasonably charge for. There are a large and growing number of artists who have figured this out -- with Kevin Smith being a great example. It's just too bad that some others are so freaked out by this that they seek to ruin it for everyone else.

Filed Under: free, kevin smith, red state, smodcast
Companies: smodco internet radio

Kevin Smith On Why You Don't Have To Be Kevin Smith To Try Innovative New Things

from the and-anyone-who-tells-you-otherwise-should-be-ignored dept

It's become a bit of a running joke that whenever a creator finds success with an innovative new business model, detractors insist that it's the exception rather than the rule—that it only worked because the artist was big, or small, or medium-sized, or whatever. A commenter once dubbed this Masnick's Law (which has since turned up on Urban Dictionary). This most often comes up in relation to music, but it's just as true of other creative industries, and especially film—with one example being Kevin Smith's unique DIY distribution plan for his movie Red State, which critics claimed would only work for him and no-one else.

Joshua Jones points us to video of a Google+ Hangout organized by MyFoxLA, in which Kevin Smith answers questions from fans (full video embedded below). At the nine minute mark, one participant asks him about these criticisms of his Red State business model, and Smith's response is (as usual) pure gold:

Anyone that tells you "oh he could do it because he's Kevin Smith"—tell 'em horseshit, man. That's somebody who's trying to tell you "don't try, you can't try, he did it, he can do it, you can't do it." Don't listen to that shit man. Think of life and progress as a game—I always think of it in terms of a game of hockey. When you're skating with the puck towards the net there's always a motherfucker trying to hook you from behind, just to slow you up enough, 'cause nobody wants to see anybody succeed. So don't listen to that. When you hear somebody go "well of course he could do it, he's Kevin Smith"—those same assholes, before I did it, were like "it's never gonna work, it's dumb, he crazy". And then when it worked, they didn't go like "you know what? we were wrong"—instead they say "well only he could do it because he's Kevin Smith" and I say horseshit. Kevin Smith wasn't always Kevin Smith, nor was Kevin Smith the little kid that pulled the fucking sword from the stone.

Smith goes on to note that the opposite is also true—just because the Red State approach has potential for others doesn't mean it's good for everyone. His success isn't rooted in the specifics of what he did, but rather in the underlying philosophy of connecting with fans and offering them something more than just another movie:

Now am I going to say like, this is the only way it should ever be done forever? No but you're always looking for alternatives, because the old method doesn't so much work anymore. You can't just put a commercial on TV and expect a bunch of people to show up and see it at the movie theatres. They have too many choices. They can just stay home and surf porn on the internet. Why would you want to go see The Avengers when you can watch like three people having sex from the privacy of your own home? You're competing for attention, and in a world where you're competing for attention, you have to figure out ways to make it more interesting for the audience to come out. It's no longer enough to be like "here's the movie, come see it".

This is a point we've made many times—there is no magic bullet solution that will work for every content creator—but Smith, in his signature style, really hammers it home. Fans are eager to spend money on artists who connect with them and give them a reason to buy, but every fan-base is unique, so those connections and those reasons are never going to be identical.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, kevin smith