I've been having this discussion a lot lately, and one of the biggest commercial obstacles to films made this cheaply, are the deliverables required by commercial distributors.
This is not a reason *not* to make your own films - but something to be aware of.
If you want to release your film only online, on your own site, by all means, shoot what you want, ignore takedowns, and have a good time.
If you want to release your videos or movies in any professional place, you'll have to make lots of pieces of media, and even more pieces of paper in order to satisfy the Errors & Omissions insurance requirements of the distributor (network or studio).
It can be done, and done well, for not a lot of money, but it's not $800. A small indie delivery easily runs $20-30k in materials alone (extra masters in different formats, QC's, mix stems, etc), plus the amount of time you're going to put in making no $$ while you work on all this:)
Anyway - studios will never do things this way - because there are too many people who A) if things get efficient, they'll lose their jobs, and B) they're populated by lots of people, and whenever lots of people work together, there is inefficiency just because we're human.
Actually, he's not wrong. Filming even on private property in Los Angeles is not legal if it's "for commercial purposes," and as granted under LA County Municipal Code Chapter 22.56.1925.
While I would not say this is pervasive or widespread in total terms of areas of the US, it IS fairly common in large cities, or any towns that see a fair amount of film or television production - that yes, even on private property, you will be required to pay for a permit.
If you are doing anything during shooting that the city or county "decides" you need a monitor on, you will have a police office or fire safety officer at your location, on your payroll (expect $400-700/day for those guys, each).
I'm currently trying to get clearances on a poster image created in 1922, hanging in the background of a video clip. The image rights are owned by the ASC, 88 years after being created... too damn long.
I'm getting sick of hearing producers (disclosure: I'm a Producers Guild member), bitch and moan about our business in one breath, and in the other breath talk about how creative they are.
Well, if we're so damn creative, why aren't we talking about new business models and making them work? Everytime I bring up the topic, eyes glaze over.
Were there *any* buggy whip makers that made a successful transition to the automobile business?
Re: Re: the inevitable failure of the big recording companies
CRAP! What I meant was, they pay for millions in advertising a record/song... that's they're primary value is in the financing and execution of ad campaigns, anymore...
Funny - my wife and I were just discussing the same thing the other day. Google would kill it. And they can afford the rights next window they come up.
Hi TAM, I hate to be the burster of bubble - but it's important to note, no one, not you, not me, is going to have the way markets function, rewritten so that everyone can keep doing what it is they do.
I'm a film and tv producer; and do I regret missing the huge wave of obscene money around just ten or fifteen years ago? You bet. But I don't point around and say that it's everyone else's fault.
It was an artificially and technologically created monopoly on distribution that conditioned our society to believe that the one-to-many model was so because "that's what people wanted."
Instead, the reality is that broadcast and theatrical restrictions were what enabled gigantic cost productions. We do still have some of this today, and will for some time to come. What has changed is that we are driven to lower our costs because we have a 500 channel and 15,000 theater universe. We have vastly more supply, and not necessarily more demand.
The more distribution outlets - the more niche audiences are enabled, and it's up to us as producers to find the ways in which we can still make profitable content. And let's be clear here - the huge network paydays are still around for a bit; but by and large, a cable network per ep fee is a fraction of what it use to be when there were only 4 networks. So what? Instead of only a few dozen people making millions a year, there's now hundreds, making decent livings. In a few more years, there will be thousands.
This cannot be stopped, nor should it be. It is exactly this situation that enables media that never would have been made any other way, to get made on it's own, find it's own small audience, and be relatively successful.
I know this firsthand from making and selling both of my feature films to market, and from producing almost 200 hours of television.
Most of my colleagues have their heads in the sand, trying to suck as much cash out of networks as they can before it all implodes. Which isn't a bad strategy; short term. Long term, there are a few of us working on rethinking what it means to be a successful media producer and at what scale can we work and be profitable?
This equation gets severely unbalanced if all you know how to do is sit in an office and come with ideas that you need a shit-ton of other people to execute because you can't execute them.
So maybe artists that want to make a living have to learn to record, remix, and market their stuff on their own, and those who have to hire lots of expensive people to do that for them, will find they can't make "any" money because they're spending on people to do the things they choose not to learn how to do for themselves.
To that, I say, "good riddance."
It is my responsibility as a producer to come up with the new ways to CwF + RtB as Mike would say, AND hopefully do so in a way that enables some folks working with me to make their livings as well. But it is not the governments nor societies place to figure that out for me, or protect the way it used to be.
As show producers, most of us are pretty thin-skinned in reality, and feel lucky if we've convinced a network to pay us a lot of money to make a show, then run away.
To find producers who actually *want* to connect with their fans in a way, is the real trick.
The more a producer or network opens the conversation with fans, the more able to constructively react to criticism you have to be. Very very few people are able to do that, much less the fairly narcissistic bunch that make films and television.
Additionally, and this is a big hurdle, if a producer DOES want to open up the conversation, the network legal folks usually have a fit. An open conversation is one they cannot control, or redact; and as such, legal departments typically react very badly to suggestions that would actually allow us to reach out and be real. I would love to have conversations directly with my audiences, and be real and honest in answering questions; but the liability that introduces on the network completely freaks out the lawyers.
Those two things taken together are on the only nails in the coffin of an open conversation; but they are big nails.
"Pirates are nothing more than underserved customers."
It's our own (Producers) damn fault we haven't found a way to build a better system for releasing our product in any format we want, at any time, in a variety of pricing ranges (including free/ad supported).
None of the studios or major networks wants this, as it destroys their business model. Producers want it, but who's going to pay to create the tools we need to make it happen (automatic music rights clearances, automated residuals reporting and payments for the unions, etc. etc.).
Most professionally produced media is well and truly hamstrung by the litany of rights and residuals attached to distribution of the media - with the end result being we are literally unable to release it in certain territories and certain formats due to the original production contracts (still very much in use today) for music, for actors or hosts, etc.
This problem won't resolve itself until there are better and easier ways to negotiate, and pay all the levels of residuals due to composers, actors, stunt players, directors, writers, etc. for shows that had originally signed union agreements for those shows.
Lastly, and along the same lines, it's totally unfeasible for producers to "just hire a couple little old ladies to do all the accounting so you can release the products." We've run business models time and again, trying to make good on contractual obligations, and every time, they turn out to be huge money losers due to the overhead costs of maintaining the signatory obligations the producers have.
Right now, there's just no way around this without significant change with the unions, and without cheap, automated tools that help solve the payment and rights problems inherent in the media itself.
Advancements in technology HAVE NOT been applied to our business as a whole. For crying out loud, the productions are still using software called "Cinergy 2000" at best.
We don't have enterprise class shared scheduling of resources, nor shared reporting or budgeting tools. And some of the web 2.0 tools are getting better, but not nearly good enough to be used widely.
Our staffing requirements and the amount of paper pushed around on a set are formidable, and we haven't gained much in efficiencies over the past 10 years. (A lot of that has to do with the paperwork required each and every day of production for each union worker on the set, SAG, AFTRA, IATSE, Teamsters, etc.).
And now that we need to do new media too (which, of course we do, and should do) it's actually only added to the staff requirements of a show.
Revamping the the entire workflow process beginning-to-end to take advantage of what you *could* do with technology today is something I've been actively pursuing for years, but it's something that raising funding for is very difficult, and it can't be built with off-the-shelf components (neither is it a $10m endeavor anymore - it's about $2m to develop and deploy an end to end, secure, offline capable, system that can be efficient and intuitive enough that you can reduce your headcount).
Have worked with those guys (WSGR) on a couple of startups, and they are truly awesome. Scary smart, and always very, very well prepared.
One of the coolest things they've done lately is to put up a "term sheet generator" based on some of their internal processes for startups. (be warned though, the generator is an extensive questionnaire that likely simply proves why a lawyer is a good idea instead of a DIY template...)
OK, overtly religious, I'm not, but dammit Mike, you're on. And you're right. What an awesomely exciting time to experiment.
It's terrifying too - I arrived in the entertainment business just early enough to still believe massive paydays were in my own future, but late enough to watch the (traditional) opportunities for such dwindle from a roaring river of money, to a babbling brook.
There's a LOT of people still believing, still fighting for that old world. Interestingly, a vast majority of producers NEVER made it to that promised land under the old system - they just believed they could. So take away the only promise they might have had, and what's left?
Lots of room to do better.
I'm excited about finding new ways of making and distributing content that might mean I don't have answer to 10 "creative" execs, and phalanx's of Standards & Practices lawyers. Instead, I could invest that time in making what I want to make, and conversing with fans who will help make our entertainment better. Hell, they'll probably make some of it themselves.
It may not be the bazillion dollar payday (that never really existed for most producers anyway), or, it might be even better. We'll never know but for the experiments.
But maybe if we don't buy the music, it's because it sucks?
Seriously, there are plenty of people paying for things that they don't HAVE to pay for in these new models. OpenOffice/Neoffice for example, is free, and a helluva lot more effort goes into that than any artistic endeavor - I pay them about $25 a year as a donation because what they make is GOOD.
In this new world, there are going to be a lot of artists who simply don't get paid for their stuff, and that's society's way of saying "sorry, your work just isn't good enough to pay for."
BUT it's also up to YOU, the artist to give people who DO like your work an easy way to pay you! It's FREE + 2.9% to put a freakin' paypal button on your website and write some copy that says "Hey! Buddy! If you do like my work, I hope you'll consider tossing me a few bucks so I can buy some Ramen while I work on more stuff to give you! THANKS!"
One out of a thousand just may do that. Reach 100,000, and you've got a few bucks. Reach 1,000,000, and that's better than you're going to get from ASCAP, BMI, etc.
Hey Mike! What's up, no Hollywood speaking gigs? We've got our heads buried too far in the sand?
Let me know if you're interested, would love to try and arrange having you speak to my guild (Producer's Guild of America). There's a lot of protectionists that might benefit from a good talking to:) er, with...
Well, it that case, all these guys (http://www.progressillinois.com/files/trucks.JPG) better get busy suing each other. Only ONE news truck allowed at any given location, at any time then, I guess?
Second, if a company ramping up crazy litigation is an indicator of a dying business model, then the AP is showing its hand in spades.
On the post: Raising Money To Put Famous Classical Music Recordings Into The Public Domain
Brilliant.
Hope they pull it off, and the classical music goes in my soundtrack library for use in videos:)
YAY!
On the post: Discovery Channel Ignores Repeated Twitter Questions, Sends Content-Free Statement
Re: Left Hand / Right Hand
Social media is about transparency and humanity.
Corporate media is about obfuscation and exclusiveness.
Which one is do you think will be the dominant form of media 10 years from now?
On the post: Making A High Quality Film On The Cheap With A Digital SLR
Context
This is not a reason *not* to make your own films - but something to be aware of.
If you want to release your film only online, on your own site, by all means, shoot what you want, ignore takedowns, and have a good time.
If you want to release your videos or movies in any professional place, you'll have to make lots of pieces of media, and even more pieces of paper in order to satisfy the Errors & Omissions insurance requirements of the distributor (network or studio).
It can be done, and done well, for not a lot of money, but it's not $800. A small indie delivery easily runs $20-30k in materials alone (extra masters in different formats, QC's, mix stems, etc), plus the amount of time you're going to put in making no $$ while you work on all this:)
Anyway - studios will never do things this way - because there are too many people who A) if things get efficient, they'll lose their jobs, and B) they're populated by lots of people, and whenever lots of people work together, there is inefficiency just because we're human.
On the post: Yes Men Release Movie Via BitTorrent To Avoid Legal Hassles
Re: Citation?
While I would not say this is pervasive or widespread in total terms of areas of the US, it IS fairly common in large cities, or any towns that see a fair amount of film or television production - that yes, even on private property, you will be required to pay for a permit.
If you are doing anything during shooting that the city or county "decides" you need a monitor on, you will have a police office or fire safety officer at your location, on your payroll (expect $400-700/day for those guys, each).
On the post: Copyright Used To Silence 10-Year-Old Girl Raising Money For Charity
my own kvetch
I'm currently trying to get clearances on a poster image created in 1922, hanging in the background of a video clip. The image rights are owned by the ASC, 88 years after being created... too damn long.
On the post: The Lack Of A 'Golden Ticket' Business Model Doesn't Mean You Give Up And Go Home
Take this business model for free
http://prezi.com/oe45kg2noinq/the-socially-enabled-theater/
I'm getting sick of hearing producers (disclosure: I'm a Producers Guild member), bitch and moan about our business in one breath, and in the other breath talk about how creative they are.
Well, if we're so damn creative, why aren't we talking about new business models and making them work? Everytime I bring up the topic, eyes glaze over.
Were there *any* buggy whip makers that made a successful transition to the automobile business?
On the post: Radiohead's Thom Yorke Predicts Record Labels Have Months, Not Years, Left To Live
Re: Re: the inevitable failure of the big recording companies
On the post: Radiohead's Thom Yorke Predicts Record Labels Have Months, Not Years, Left To Live
Re: the inevitable failure of the big recording companies
On the post: NBC's Delayed Telecasts Show A Company Living In The Last Century
Re:
Yes please!
On the post: No, Copyright Has Never Been About Protecting Labor
Re: Re: Re:
I'm a film and tv producer; and do I regret missing the huge wave of obscene money around just ten or fifteen years ago? You bet. But I don't point around and say that it's everyone else's fault.
It was an artificially and technologically created monopoly on distribution that conditioned our society to believe that the one-to-many model was so because "that's what people wanted."
Instead, the reality is that broadcast and theatrical restrictions were what enabled gigantic cost productions. We do still have some of this today, and will for some time to come. What has changed is that we are driven to lower our costs because we have a 500 channel and 15,000 theater universe. We have vastly more supply, and not necessarily more demand.
The more distribution outlets - the more niche audiences are enabled, and it's up to us as producers to find the ways in which we can still make profitable content. And let's be clear here - the huge network paydays are still around for a bit; but by and large, a cable network per ep fee is a fraction of what it use to be when there were only 4 networks. So what? Instead of only a few dozen people making millions a year, there's now hundreds, making decent livings. In a few more years, there will be thousands.
This cannot be stopped, nor should it be. It is exactly this situation that enables media that never would have been made any other way, to get made on it's own, find it's own small audience, and be relatively successful.
I know this firsthand from making and selling both of my feature films to market, and from producing almost 200 hours of television.
Most of my colleagues have their heads in the sand, trying to suck as much cash out of networks as they can before it all implodes. Which isn't a bad strategy; short term. Long term, there are a few of us working on rethinking what it means to be a successful media producer and at what scale can we work and be profitable?
This equation gets severely unbalanced if all you know how to do is sit in an office and come with ideas that you need a shit-ton of other people to execute because you can't execute them.
So maybe artists that want to make a living have to learn to record, remix, and market their stuff on their own, and those who have to hire lots of expensive people to do that for them, will find they can't make "any" money because they're spending on people to do the things they choose not to learn how to do for themselves.
To that, I say, "good riddance."
It is my responsibility as a producer to come up with the new ways to CwF + RtB as Mike would say, AND hopefully do so in a way that enables some folks working with me to make their livings as well. But it is not the governments nor societies place to figure that out for me, or protect the way it used to be.
Evolution, baby!
On the post: Why Don't More TV Shows Try To Connect With Fans?
because if we put a real conversation online...
To find producers who actually *want* to connect with their fans in a way, is the real trick.
The more a producer or network opens the conversation with fans, the more able to constructively react to criticism you have to be. Very very few people are able to do that, much less the fairly narcissistic bunch that make films and television.
Additionally, and this is a big hurdle, if a producer DOES want to open up the conversation, the network legal folks usually have a fit. An open conversation is one they cannot control, or redact; and as such, legal departments typically react very badly to suggestions that would actually allow us to reach out and be real. I would love to have conversations directly with my audiences, and be real and honest in answering questions; but the liability that introduces on the network completely freaks out the lawyers.
Those two things taken together are on the only nails in the coffin of an open conversation; but they are big nails.
On the post: Entertainment Industry Propaganda Moves Into Schools In Australia As Well
Re:
"Pirates are nothing more than underserved customers."
It's our own (Producers) damn fault we haven't found a way to build a better system for releasing our product in any format we want, at any time, in a variety of pricing ranges (including free/ad supported).
None of the studios or major networks wants this, as it destroys their business model. Producers want it, but who's going to pay to create the tools we need to make it happen (automatic music rights clearances, automated residuals reporting and payments for the unions, etc. etc.).
Most professionally produced media is well and truly hamstrung by the litany of rights and residuals attached to distribution of the media - with the end result being we are literally unable to release it in certain territories and certain formats due to the original production contracts (still very much in use today) for music, for actors or hosts, etc.
This problem won't resolve itself until there are better and easier ways to negotiate, and pay all the levels of residuals due to composers, actors, stunt players, directors, writers, etc. for shows that had originally signed union agreements for those shows.
Lastly, and along the same lines, it's totally unfeasible for producers to "just hire a couple little old ladies to do all the accounting so you can release the products." We've run business models time and again, trying to make good on contractual obligations, and every time, they turn out to be huge money losers due to the overhead costs of maintaining the signatory obligations the producers have.
Right now, there's just no way around this without significant change with the unions, and without cheap, automated tools that help solve the payment and rights problems inherent in the media itself.
On the post: NBC's Zucker Still Seems Like He's Feeling Around In The Dark
Re: I love the analogy.
Advancements in technology HAVE NOT been applied to our business as a whole. For crying out loud, the productions are still using software called "Cinergy 2000" at best.
We don't have enterprise class shared scheduling of resources, nor shared reporting or budgeting tools. And some of the web 2.0 tools are getting better, but not nearly good enough to be used widely.
Our staffing requirements and the amount of paper pushed around on a set are formidable, and we haven't gained much in efficiencies over the past 10 years. (A lot of that has to do with the paperwork required each and every day of production for each union worker on the set, SAG, AFTRA, IATSE, Teamsters, etc.).
And now that we need to do new media too (which, of course we do, and should do) it's actually only added to the staff requirements of a show.
Revamping the the entire workflow process beginning-to-end to take advantage of what you *could* do with technology today is something I've been actively pursuing for years, but it's something that raising funding for is very difficult, and it can't be built with off-the-shelf components (neither is it a $10m endeavor anymore - it's about $2m to develop and deploy an end to end, secure, offline capable, system that can be efficient and intuitive enough that you can reduce your headcount).
On the post: Apparently Google's Lawyers Were Prepped For Google/Apple Antitrust Inquiry
WSGR Rocks
One of the coolest things they've done lately is to put up a "term sheet generator" based on some of their internal processes for startups. (be warned though, the generator is an extensive questionnaire that likely simply proves why a lawyer is a good idea instead of a DIY template...)
http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=practice/termsheet.htm
(note: I don't work for WSGR or have any current business with them - not for lack of tryin' though:)
On the post: Filmmaker Releases Film Via All Torrent Sites, Says Pay If You Like It
Let's talk margins though
I know this, firsthand, because I've been through it twice with indie films I've produced AND SOLD to distributors.
At $50k in costs, the 10,000 x $5 is right on for breakeven. BUT, you as a producer do have to be savvy enough to build a good website (), and do things that REALLY do add value to your IP (if it's any good to start with). Why not some signed copies? Signed scripts? Dinner with the cast & crew? Some of the very things Mike's talked about a million times (Reason to Buy).
Anyway, I digress. Let's talk profits. One of my films we made and delivered for just about $100k, including all the fully QC'd HD masters, etc. for sales all over the world. Our shoot itself was just under $60k, post production (mixing, color correction, HD mastering) ate up the rest of that. That's stuff that largely you can't get for free.
The film has now (4 years later) done some $300K worth of worldwide sales.
HOWEVER, the simple act of selling it to a distributor (and this is a reputable distrib, who's been timely and accurate with their royalty statements to us), has so far meant that we've seen less than $60k returned to us.
Their "marketing" costs, the overhead that they charge back against our film, and their "distribution costs" have been approximately $240,000.
Now, would our film have generated that much in sales without their work? Likely not. Is their work worth 2.4x more than our film cost to make. I would say "no."
Unfortunately, there's no way for us to know without having tried it (though I might try it with my first film, if & when the distrib rights expire with it's current distrib).
But the bottom line is, with good marketing (and you don't NEED a studio marketing department to do this - you just have to put in the work yourself *gasp*!) and a savvy handle on adding value, a $100k in film sales could be a very profitable venture for a $50k film. In our case, a $100k film with $300k in sales is still *unprofitable* for the filmmakers - and that's too bad.
I definitely look forward to an era where independent producers can take direct responsibility for the margins on their products.
On the post: Topspin Shows That Premium Offerings Get Sales: People Will Pay For Value Beyond The Music
Re: Re: Thieves
If, like the vast majority of garage bands, they suck, AND they're not all that smart, they will do badly.
I guess it's just all doom and gloom when the crappy artists don't get subsidized by the hit artists anymore, huh?
On the post: You Can't Wait For The Perfect Business Model
Amen, brother
It's terrifying too - I arrived in the entertainment business just early enough to still believe massive paydays were in my own future, but late enough to watch the (traditional) opportunities for such dwindle from a roaring river of money, to a babbling brook.
There's a LOT of people still believing, still fighting for that old world. Interestingly, a vast majority of producers NEVER made it to that promised land under the old system - they just believed they could. So take away the only promise they might have had, and what's left?
Lots of room to do better.
I'm excited about finding new ways of making and distributing content that might mean I don't have answer to 10 "creative" execs, and phalanx's of Standards & Practices lawyers. Instead, I could invest that time in making what I want to make, and conversing with fans who will help make our entertainment better. Hell, they'll probably make some of it themselves.
It may not be the bazillion dollar payday (that never really existed for most producers anyway), or, it might be even better. We'll never know but for the experiments.
On the post: There Is No New Business Model For Music?
Re: Re: It's not wank
Seriously, there are plenty of people paying for things that they don't HAVE to pay for in these new models. OpenOffice/Neoffice for example, is free, and a helluva lot more effort goes into that than any artistic endeavor - I pay them about $25 a year as a donation because what they make is GOOD.
In this new world, there are going to be a lot of artists who simply don't get paid for their stuff, and that's society's way of saying "sorry, your work just isn't good enough to pay for."
BUT it's also up to YOU, the artist to give people who DO like your work an easy way to pay you! It's FREE + 2.9% to put a freakin' paypal button on your website and write some copy that says "Hey! Buddy! If you do like my work, I hope you'll consider tossing me a few bucks so I can buy some Ramen while I work on more stuff to give you! THANKS!"
One out of a thousand just may do that. Reach 100,000, and you've got a few bucks. Reach 1,000,000, and that's better than you're going to get from ASCAP, BMI, etc.
On the post: Announcing The Free! Summit... And Some Other Speaking Gigs
No Hollywood?
Let me know if you're interested, would love to try and arrange having you speak to my guild (Producer's Guild of America). There's a lot of protectionists that might benefit from a good talking to:) er, with...
:)
On the post: The Troubling Implications Of Recognizing 'Hot News' As Property
Hm, someone's in trouble
Second, if a company ramping up crazy litigation is an indicator of a dying business model, then the AP is showing its hand in spades.
Next >>