T.S. Eliot famously wrote of “the falling shadow.”

Many of you are already familiar with using Youtube to release trailers and clips for your film, but in the last few months Youtube relaunched their site and they made some adjustments to their analytics functionality. If you haven’t been back in a while to check your data, you should because you’ll find some really interesting tools to help in your efforts at reaching an audience.

As I said in a past post, I have started using a tool called Tube Toolbox to find ballet fans on Youtube for the Joffrey Ballet documentary I am working on. We now have over 300 subscribers on the channel in about 3 months of use. It isn’t earth shaking numbers, but remember these are all people interested specifically in the topic of the film who have chosen to subscribe to the channel. Some of them also have their own followings in the dance world so the ripple effect worldwide is greater, more sticky and far cheaper than if I had used advertising to reach thousands of mostly uninterested people.  And it continues to grow every day. But what do I know about these people?

I know the top 5 countries they come from, I know the gender and age range they fall into and how they came to the page. I know what videos they are watching AND for how long AND where in each video viewing I lose them. Wow! If you have ever wondered why a video isn’t working, you can now access the tab called Audience Retention.

You can choose which of your uploaded videos to analyze and then shows you a graph like this

It  is very useful to know how long the average viewer stays with your video. Do they cut out after 5 seconds? Does it start strong and then decline by the middle? At what point do you lose them? Maybe the video is too long or doesn’t stay compelling. You can use these stats to test how your edit performs and make changes. As you can see, there are 2 parts to this. Absolute audience retention shows the views of every moment of the video as a percentage of the number of views of the beginning of the video. Relative audience retention shows your video’s ability to retain viewers relative to all YouTube videos of similar length. Relative is less important to me than absolute.

Other interesting data can be found in the Playback and Traffic Sources tabs. Playback tells you where people are watching your videos. On the Youtube page, the channel page, through an embedded video player on another site? If it is on another site, you can click that link and it will tell you which ones. Also, it will tell you how many views are from a mobile device. Traffic sources tell you how they found your video, through a search engine, direct links such as Facebook or Twitter, or through suggested videos that line Youtube’s right hand sidebar on videos similar to yours. When you seed your video on other sites (or when others do it for you), it is important to know what works and what doesn’t so you can make adjustments.

Youtube has also put all of this information together in a handy download called The Creator Playbook that you can download for free HERE which was updated in November when they implemented these changes. I hope this information helps when you are thinking about your strategy for using Youtube.

 

• “The Artist”
•  Thomas Langmann, Producer
• “The Descendants” Jim Burke, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, Producers
• “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” Scott Rudin, Producer
• “The Help” Brunson Green, Chris Columbus and Michael Barnathan, Producers
• “Hugo” Graham King and Martin Scorsese, Producers
• “Midnight in Paris” Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum, Producers
• “Moneyball” Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz and Brad Pitt, Producers
• “The Tree of Life” Nominees to be determined
• “War Horse“ Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Producers

When I sat down to cover this event of events I suddenly found myself transported back in time to 1970.  I am me as I am now, today, not the me I was then because I wasn’t born until March 9^th and since the awards took place on February 27^th, well you get the picture.  Frank Sinatra is on stage being Frank, old Blue Eyes as he is known, and he’s just announced Carry Grant.  The audience has been waiting in that anticipatory low tone humming a bunch of strangers make sitting elbow to elbow in the dark, and they immediately come to life in unanimous applause as Carry appears stage right (house left from our vantage point).  The camera cuts back to the theater as one by one people pop to their feet, the collective sound so much like the ocean or maybe a thousand thousand shards of confetti raining down on the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade.  Then I’m here, now, but it’s the future, February 26^th, at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California and Ryan Gosling is where Carry had been only a moment ago, crossing the stage in a smart tuxedo; traditional cut, bow tie, impeccable.  He stops with that boyish grin, charmer, then composure where you stand at these shows, and serious now, eyes tracking to the teleprompter for the speech I have written.

I observe.

The Help

Some films are required viewing for their technical brilliance and cinematic accomplishments, others capture the light just right and the beautiful imagery creates a world for our imagination where captivating characters embark on journeys of adventure, love, and triumph.  Some films take us to far away places; serve primary and secondary escape shuttles coming away from the failing mother ships of our lives.  Every now and again films give us pause, reward our daring, and enliven otherwise ordinary to bolster the human spirit against shared tragedy and personal understanding.  Sometimes those films are the same thing, or in place of grand landscapes they turn inward where they speak to the heart and all films truly live.  The Help is a challenging film that relies on the strength of commanding performances to elevate dramatic explorations of our dark, not-to-distant past.  Viola Davis, Bryce Dallas Howard and Octavia Spencer are magnetic and clearly show great fortitude and poise.  Director Tate Taylor knows some of the cast from his earlier film (Pretty Ugly People) and was wise to enlist their talents here.  This is a return to fundamental filmmaking, to the power and grandeur of true character work that can be traced to the best films of any era, and with such striking honesty and heroic portrayals of everyday people we can’t help but embrace them, grow a little in our hearts and minds when the fine line between art and life is blurred for a little while.  You might not escape the troubles of your here and now in this film, your everyday, but through this film you have an opportunity for inward journeys where greater things happen all the time and we hope one day to have taken similar steps on our own.

War Horse

An incredible accomplishment that is everything it appears to be and quite honestly has as much to do with what we see on the screen as it does with what made it all possible.  The advertising campaign for War Horse was staggering and for all intent and purposes dwarfed the entire production budget for other films that were nominated.  But after all the commercials and ads have faded from view, all the critics have been silenced and you sit down where ever that might be to experience this film, you feel as though you’re invited into a world where all things are possible and a film about the life a horse named Joey is not only possible but necessary.  Once you embrace the fact that the protagonist is a four-legged war-horse the adventure of a lifetime ensues and before long you can’t help but root for him to make it home again.  The fact that Spielberg is able to accomplish so much through a myriad of technical, computer, puppetry and live action scene work with horses, people and more horses is reason enough to praise this movie even against your concerns it might not work.  Some have pointed out familiar problems found in the grand sense of the Spielberg universe – the heavy melodrama even though melodrama is not the heinous thing many critics slap it about with, the grand OK’ness that Spielberg requires perhaps to offset the abject atrocity he is so versed and well commands – yet all in all War Horse is the perfect metaphor of where we are in the world today.  A collective pessimism weighs heavy on films that set out to lift our spirits and we are so ready to resist the very idea of triumph that we get in the way of our own happiness of it.  War Horse is every bit the Spielberg film you would expect and perhaps much much more – the sort of big screen larger than life experience you’ve grown up with and truly need more than you know.  Read my full review of War Horse here.

The Descendants

There is little doubt this film will resonant with a broad spectrum of movie goers – from star George Clooney to the lush and fertile landscape beauty of Hawaii.  Filmmaker du jour Alexander Payne hopes to capitalize on his universally appealing brand of verisimilitude as much as Judd Apatow sells toilet bowl humor or Adam Sandler gives falling down stupid a sort of brand name marketability.  Payne is already a master storyteller with bankable Americana contributions and a sort of name-clout-recognition that has taken his peers much longer to achieve.  Payne returns to the family centered plot as in his Oscar-winning film Sideways, with the machinations of the dysfunctional ensemble and their struggles to, but never quite achieving, normal.  The Descendants contains the same dark undercurrent here, a husband facing his crumbling family after his wife suffers an accident.  We all want Clooney in this role as much as he makes the broken father endearing, attractive in that flawed boy-man personae he has built a Hollywood career on.  Sometimes we feel compelled to dislike films like this for their honesty, the mirror held too long so that we’ve seen too much of ourselves and our problems.  In this case Clooney invites us beyond what repels us and this gives his bumbling father figure Ralph more depth and complexity, more genuineness than Jack the spy (my review of The American  2010) or Ryan Bingham the perpetual traveler (my review of Up In The Air 2009) – here it feels as though Clooney and Payne had a conversation beforehand to talk about all the things he’s done before this, the successes and the failures, and they agreed to leave all that out.

The Artist  

It takes moments to understand why this film was chosen and perhaps less to appreciate it from the outset.  Though we think we have this one figured out, director Michel Hazanavicius embarks on a challenging undertaking in capturing the simple beauty of an era in transition – that is the chasm that threatened an entire industry when silent pictures gave way to what came to be known as “the talkies”.  The Artist is a striking portrait lovingly photographed and well constructed with such austere beauty and conviction that it is impossible to know whether you will enjoy it without screening it.  Some will discount the film as obvious “Oscar Bait” though to be honest, who doesn’t want the film they’ve nurtured for years to win, to make it the best it can be with the hope it will reach us so very far removed from the golden dreams and platinum halos of Hollywood?  Anyone who has ever held a camera or hit their mark, waited for the light to fall just right to capture a moment in all the moments of a movie – we can tell you that even as we dream of success we’re still fighting for every frame that it happens, that tiny spark, the magic that happens along the way.  If only people knew how hard a thing it is to reach this stage – even the hint of glory seems impossible.  The Artist will not be a film everyone will like but it will nevertheless be a film everyone should see.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

They tell you in film school to keep it simple and make it make sense – and at no better place is that rule most important than in the title.  If you think you know what this film is about you’re probably wrong, just like if you think you haven’t got a clue you might surprise yourself.  We will most likely return to the events of 9/11 much the way we do our wars, every so many years after the wounds have scabbed over, after our anger allows us to explore the hurtful things of our collective experiences through the cinema where all things can be made to bear some semblance of ourselves.  Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock are the stars fueling this tale of modern loss and the existential quandary of personal hurt contrasting our collective sorrows and how we get from the beginning and end of our lives.  Like The Help this too is a challenging film that touches a very open wound known around the world, a place that might not ever heal as we search for who we are and where we are like the answers found in movies.  This is a powerful story and one that feels awfully convenient come awards time but nonetheless a film that demands our attention even if for only two hours.

Hugo  

Scorsese and 3D.  It was inevitable, destined, and perhaps this film is not about an aging filmmaker desperately searching for relevancy in a medium that’s speeding a thousand miles faster than when he started.  Hugo has all the ingredients for blockbuster accomplishments, the story of children who take action because adults have lost their way, a magical place where our youth steal away to save their world and ours because they can’t wait any longer for us to do it.  It is difficult for a filmmaker like Scorsese to depart from the darker recesses of broken characters and damaged worlds, to put edges he’s honed for decades on children’s stories from the man who carved an imperfect De Niro from granite rock into a Raging Bull, made Harvey Keitel once and proud friend who would betray the King of the Jews for Last Temptation of Christ, then dug down deep in the mire of human obsession for Bickel the Taxi Driver, Goodfellas the princes of cool and calculated murders.  In an era of the half-blood prince, the lion, the witch and wardrobe, in grand the spectacle of children embarking on no children’s journey you or I have ever known, Scorsese knows that in order to raise the bar back to the place where he set it for all the right moves in character studies and story driven adventures, he’d have to bring technology front and center.  Grand for the sake of grand and now for the test of time.

Midnight in Paris  

A film that thinks too much to be entirely forthright, makes clever for the sake of gimmickry then talks too much to have something to say.  By the time you’ve committed yourself you realize you’ve gone beyond the point of no return – the point in a journey where it is further to turn around then continue on – and in the end you realize you’ve been told how to feel about most Woody Allen movies until now when you have every reason to disbelieve.  I still believe Allen’s best films are those he is not in – there, I said it – oh the cad!  As far as romantic comedies are concerned, the stuffy aristocrats of pompous wind and heady opinions, you’ll find plenty.  As far as humorous situational absurdity coupled with the improbable, there is all that.  I suppose the best advice is to dig right in but then again, you have to pay for what you eat and by the time you realize you don’t have enough money to pay for what’s missing, you begin manufacturing all sorts of things to cover it up so you might at least have a fond memory later.

Moneyball

If you live in the Bay Area it is like having the kid from down the street playing in the Super Bowl or driving the #1 car at the Indianapolis Speedway.  If you live anywhere else it might feel like a hometown movie or just another baseball movie, but Brad Pitt delivers a distinctly other performance here that will resonant for some and seem dialed well below necessary.  Jonah Hill was singled out for his performance in this film and it will really be up to you if it’s deserving.  Personally a film about baseball has only two possible outcomes – the team wins or the team loses.  In this case it’s obvious going in for anyone who watches the sport, being this is a historical snapshot of a moment in time, and for those who can read sports movies from the cheap seats.  The performances are effective, compelling at times, but selecting this film against all the other films that should have been picked is mostly just showing us the power and the effect of big names to make little movies matter.

Tree of Life

Terrence Malick is an enigma and much like the man his films rely entirely on the beauty of the universe and the sanguine moviegoer who wishes for more but is settled by less.  To suggest it would make sense to analyze a film that purports to defy structure, to scratch the screen for meaning in the meaningless would offer than the sum of the results.  If you like Malick or want to like him you’ll find enough in this film to carry you a decade until he makes another.  If you’re looking for a reason to like him or his films or want to like him, this film might not have the desired effect.  Maybe Sean Penn was right.

By the end of all the speechifying I realize I’m at the end of a very long Word document.  The cursor is popping on off and it dawns on me that I don’t ever really think about it blinking.  On|off, on|off.

Go ahead I think between blinks.  You have all the other nominations to write a speech for.  Who did you have in mind to deliver?

To be continued.

 

 

 

Sources:

http://oscar.go.com/

Check out Rodney’s coverage over at Fernby Films: http://www.fernbyfilms.com/2012/01/25/the-84th-academy-awards-nominations/

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/01/oscar-nominations-2012-hugo-artist-lead-oscars-list

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/01/25/oscars-2012-factoids/

http://mubi.com/oscars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Zijgn-c9w

I think those 2 words are starting to lose their meaning when talking about using social media to reach audiences. I am not offering another word because at the end of the day a word should only describe an idea of what you are truly doing and maybe THAT is the thing that is becoming lost in all of this talk. What are we truly saying when we use those words?

Engagement isn’t a measurement from your Facebook or Youtube Insights, it isn’t how many retweets you receive on Twitter. Connections aren’t simply a number of followers and likes. In thinking about the traditional use of this word, your “connection” was someone who was willing to help you, someone who knew you, trusted you and vice versa.

Audiences are now delighted by communicating not with a “brand,” but with a “face” or a person. This mindset shift in corporate America is very hard to make when they really never thought about the audiences actually being people…with faces beyond eyeballs. If they did think this way, would they really keep hitting that face with ads over and over again? Would the conversation be constantly one sided, “buy my stuff” ” buy my stuff” “click here, and buy my stuff.” That is the extent of the brand relationship with customers that the typical movie studio or distributor has now.

When I talk to you about creating a relationship with your audience that is long term, not just for one project, I really want you to think about what this means. The investment of time and creativity and energy this is going to take, not to boost “likes” on Facebook and follower numbers on Twitter, but to really draw people to what you are doing and hold them there willingly. Using these great new tools is just a newer way of communicating, but the communication itself isn’t new. We as humans have always communicated with each other and naturally gravitated to those with similar interests and it is the same now.

That is also an important distinction. Audiences may not only want to communicate with you, but also with like minded people AROUND you and your work. In this way, brands can benefit from heavily using social tools. They don’t have to be the sole source of communication, they can provide a place and content that enables “fans” to speak to each other about the brand. Be careful when you are using these tools only to speak about yourself, but also don’t  become so enamored of people “buzzing” about you and your work that you never step into the conversation. I see this a lot with brands that happily RT positive tweets but almost never get into conversations.

Main thing to takeaway here is not the fact that you are trying to pump up “scores” or numbers on your channels. You are trying to touch people using electronic means and this will take time, effort, energy and a lot of patience. There’s no quick fix, no magic solutions, no one  ”engagement tool” that is going to make these relationships last. For those who don’t have these attributes (time, energy etc), this isn’t going to work and you will have an increasingly difficult time gaining an audience in the future.

I recently answered a few questions for the kind folks over at Fanbridge for their blog. Below is an excerpt from that post…more to come.

First, filmmakers should start by knowing for whom their story is. NO, it isn’t for everyone. You can’t reach “everyone” so really narrow it down, even beyond demographic characteristics, to interest levels. What would this person wear to your screening? Really get down into that kind of detail. Start with yourself: why do you like this story, what draws you to tell it? From there you will know where to find people similar to yourself and how to speak to them.

Social media is about authentic voice and speaking to real people, not faceless masses. If you only have a vague idea of who your audience is at the beginning, it will stay vague and you won’t effectively be able to reach them or anyone. This work cannot be done from the outside; you can’t just hire a marketing company to tweet for your film. They have no idea what to say to someone who actually starts a dialog. This work needs to be done by someone embedded both within the production and within the audience community of your film. This doesn’t mean you as a director or producer are totally off the hook to connect with people, and you shouldn’t want that anyway, but having what Jon Reiss would call a PMD (Producer of Marketing and Distribution) to help alleviate the total burden of connecting with an audience [burden in the context of generating content that keeps them engaged] and determining the most lucrative and efficient method to release the film is a smart idea.

This work cannot wait until the film is in post because social relationships take time to build and only giving it a month or two of attention isn’t going to result in much awareness. It also takes time to prepare for distribution outlets whether you are going to use the festival circuit as your theatrical or book community screenings, or book traditional theaters. Whether you will release online at the same time, or soon after and which outlets will you use? How much will you charge? What publications do you need to develop relationships with to get great coverage, what is the website going to look like and how will it change during the production process (yes, it will change)? There will be a need for extra content, more than one trailer or a series of clips, sourcing other content or creating it. These are all jobs that cannot be done in a hurry and someone needs to be on it. What about sponsorship? Who will handle the sponsorship proposals and logistics?

These are not the skills of typical film producers but someone now needs to be overseeing it and not involved with the filmmaking process. It isn’t work that falls within the realm of traditional publicist, unit publicist or the average distribution company, so someone needs to be handling this from very early on and that someone is a member of the film team. Also, taking on the responsibility gives you more leverage. You know who your audience is, how they will consume what you make, you are in contact with them every day and you don’t need to give up rights or revenue in order to sell to them, so why would you sign away your rights to do this? It doesn’t make sense.

To read the entire piece, click here.

All this week, Jon Reiss and I have been participating in a virtual Q&A panel on the D Word site for documentary filmmakers.  I have to say, I like this virtual panel a ton better than the usual live panels at film events. You can ask very specific questions of the panelists without the need for a moderator controlling the questions and having a bunch of panelists sit up there and basically tout the services of their company or give coy answers. It would be kind of awkward to give short and meaningless answers in this kind of forum. I hope everyone else is enjoying it too. Anyway…one of the questions that came up to day from Richard Phinney of Ontario, Canada asks “there is much talk about getting email addresses from audiences at preview screenings … how exactly do you go about doing that?”

In our book, filmmaker Ari Gold describes how he was able to collect over 12,000 email addresses from the audience of his semi theatrical and theatrical screenings.  Here’s the excerpt:

“Ari attached a short video to the front of the feature at the semi-theatrical and theatrical screenings that included the text-to-join number, whereby one texts their email address to a Google Voice number that he set up…it was (213) 290-DRUM [213.290.3786]…and, at the time of this book’s publication, it still works, even though he has to manually copy and paste the emails into his master list. The video alone was extremely effective, but when Ari was also present at the screenings, or when he did a live Skype Q&A, he was able to get almost all in the audience to sign up. Truly unique and impressive.”

The old fashioned way of doing this is passing out a clipboard and I still think that is fine if the screening is small and controlled by you, but it doesn’t work so well at festival screenings. You aren’t given much time to pass it around the audience before the screening and people leave as the credits roll after, plus you are too busy heading up to do Q&A so even if you started passing it, the clipboard is likely to get mislaid while you are tied up and then you have to keep track of the papers and remember to enter in the email addresses by hand.

Another solution I have seen is using QR codes which can be read with any mobile smartphone that takes the web brower to a special landing page where an email address can be entered. The email address is then sent straight into your email provider’s database. Here is an explanation of how it works with Constant Contact.

Providing incentive to give an email address should yield better results than simply putting a sign up box on your website. Giving away a piece of content like a song, ebook, rare photos or a piece of video not found anywhere else are all incentives to give an email address as “payment” to access this content. Topspin Media calls this E4M (email for media) and it powers their embeddable widgets for websites. There are many more features on Topspin as well so check them out (full disclosure: Topspin is one of the sponsors of Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul and we are using them to power our store shopping cart).

Another company I have been speaking with recently is Fanbridge who has a similar feature for Facebook pages as well as any website. They have a free basic edition for you to try out and a more feature rich edition that costs $30 a month. They advocate offering content only your fans can see so it entices those to become fans and rewards those who already are. I will be putting their system to work on 3 pages I help manage on Facebook and I’ll let you know how I get on. Also, it seems kinda cool in that it captures the comments people leave on your wall and you can export the positive quotes for use in other places. You can find out more about how it works on this site which was just acquired by the company and will soon be rebranded.

Hopefully these tips give you some ideas on how to boost your email list. Remember, direct connections to an audience are the lifeblood of monetizing your work in the most profitable way. When someone has given you permission to contact them, they want to hear from you and they are way more likely to support you which is more cost effective than chasing complete strangers.

Many times when independent filmmakers send a request for help to me, they attach a link to their film trailer. This is the video they have on Youtube and on their website as a representation of their film, a reason to see it or buy it. Often, they are terrible. They are too long, they are too slow, there is no sense of what the film is about or why I would want to see it. A trailer should not be a 3 minute cut down version of your film. It is an advertisement meant to pique the interest of prospective viewers and there is a talent to making them work. This isn’t a job for your intern.

I asked professional trailer editor Bill Woolery if he would share his knowledge about what makes a good trailer, what are common mistakes he sees so many filmmakers (and distributors and studios) making, how to use trailers if you are trying to fundraise and what techniques are commonly used to ensure action is taken. Your trailer should make people say “I’ve got to see this film!” or “I want to donate money to help it reach its goal.”

For over 2 decades, Bill worked as a trailer editor for major studios and production companies on their theatrical and TV campaigns. He has since moved into editing trailers for documentaries and non profit humanitarian projects  for use in fund raising.  He has established himself as the go-to trailer expert for documentary and independent film producers and is often asked to speak and critique trailers in seminars hosted by Carole Dean and other high-profile members in the documentary community. His regularly scheduled “Trailer Clinics” help give filmmakers the tips and tools to improve their fundraising trailers.

An example of Bill’s past work is the trailer for The Unbearable Lightness of Being. “My boss tossed me the project saying, ‘We don’t know what to do with this, so come up with something.’  It turned out to be one of my most satisfying challenges. Janácek’s chamber music set the tone for the editing.  The film tanked at the box office, but AFI now includes it on their 100 best American films list.  A young Daniel Day-Lewis stars with Juliette Binoche.”

How does editing a trailer differ from editing an entire film?

 

“These are not only two different styles of editing, they’re two distinctly different realties.  A trailer incorporates the same scenes as the full-length piece but uses a totally different “language” to express them.  When filmmakers come to me, it’s often because they tried cutting their own trailers.  After much labor in the edit room, they were never able to achieve a sequence that felt like a trailer.  There is a characteristic pace and flow to a trailer you don’t find in narrative editing.  It’s the same material but presented with an urgency and immediacy that’s very different from your whole film.

A feature documentary has emotional moments, but a trailer is basically one emotional moment from beginning to end.  It takes you immediately into an emotional reality and holds you there until it drops you at the end.  During that span, it must also convey specific information: who the characters are, what the story is about, why the characters are doing what they’re doing.  Most importantly, it must answer the questions: Why is this doc (or feature) something you should see?  And why is it important to see it now?

These are a few of the many elements that make a good trailer and constructing it is more complicated than most narrative filmmakers realize.  A well-edited trailer is a very busy ‘world.’  At every moment you’re moving through multiple arcs: characters’ arc, the main story arc, the emotional arcs.  They’re all intertwined.  It’s a lot to keep track of.  And over-arching all that is ‘the build.’

The ‘build’ is probably the element that most clearly defines the difference between trailer editing and feature editing.  A trailer must maintain a continuous forward momentum.  This momentum usually picks up in speed and urgency in the second half of the trailer.”

How to evaluate a potential trailer editor for your project?

“Beware the editor/producer/filmmaker who has some downtime and says, ‘Sure, I can cut you a trailer.  I’ll do it as a favor.’  Also, stay away from anyone who thinks a trailer is basically a cut-down of the feature – because you will get a cut-down of the feature and not a trailer.”

Why should a trailer editor be used instead of just an intern or the editor already working on your film?

“During the past 10 years, the role of the trailer has changed, especially in the funding strategy of documentary and indie production.  Traditionally, trailers were edited by the filmmakers themselves because (a) budgets were tight and (b) they had the edit system and media sitting there in their second bedroom.  ’Outsourcing’ a trailer didn’t make sense.   Over time, with the development of the Internet, people became accustomed to seeing videos (addicted to seeing them, really).  Eventually, the pitch, the proposal, the text on your website – all of these took second place to the video trailer.  It was as if your project wasn’t real unless your intended audience could ‘see’ something on the screen.   Today, some distributors or funders will ask to see your trailer before talking to you. So the trailer has become the most critical element to getting your project funded or distributed.  It needs to be really good, really effective.  Paying a trailer editor is now considered a sound investment.” (I totally agree!)

What are the different types of trailers?  such as theatrical, TV etc

If  you check the Doc Trailers page of my website you’ll find this:

Fundraising Trailer – the key element to your project’s success

Work-in-Progress Trailer – to find your finishing funds

Showcase Trailer – specifically pitched to buyers/distributors/broadcasters

Sizzle / Teaser trailers – to generate buzz when you don’t have much to show

Theatrical Trailers – the all-purpose video that establishes your project’s identity

The majority of my editing projects now involve FUNDRAISING trailers.  As a trailer category, it’s wide open because it depends on what you have to show, how good your footage is and what you want to accomplish with it.  In terms of length, it could be anywhere from 3 to 8 minutes long, possible up to 12 if you’ve got a compelling story and/or extraordinary footage that can sustain it that long.  It also has to do with who it’s intended for: a foundation, grant qualification, a private funder.  Research your intended viewer and find out what they’re looking for.

Everyone agrees a trailer should not reveal the end of the story.  For theatrical-style trailers that is certainly the case.  But when you’re putting together a fundraising trailer the purpose is to sell your idea to people who can share your vision and might invest in it.  They need to see what they’re buying – all of it.  It’s important for them to know you have a satisfying ending so don’t hesitate to show it.

WORK-IN-PROGRESS trailers run longer so the viewer, usually a major funder, can feel confident about the project’s progress, that their investment is worthwhile and in capable hands.  In terms of length it’s determined by the funder’s needs and could be anywhere between 4 to 14 minutes.

Every project needs a THEATRICAL-STYLE trailer.  This is the one that’s used as the all-purpose “calling card” for your project, the one you post on YouTube and Vimeo and the project’s website.  It’s normally made after your doc is finished and mastered – but sometimes there’s need for it before the projects gets to that point.  This kind of trailer is short, usually 1.5  to 3 minutes.  It’s energetic and dramatic and makes no obvious solicitation for funds and does not reveal the end of story.  The cliff-hanger ending that works so well for commercial entertainment trailers is also the most effective “out” for documentary trailers.

Finally, there are TEASER or SIZZLE trailers.  These terms are used pretty much interchangeable.  Their purpose is generating advanced buzz for the project.  In both cases, they’re often put together with rip-o-matic images from the Net with a voice-over telling you how great the project will be once the viewer contributes the funds to realize it.  These kinds of trailers might include a “pedigree” montage of the filmmaker’s past projects – if they exist.  A teaser is short, 30 seconds to a minute and a half, unless the “past projects” are very prestigious and need screen time to be showcased.”

In part 2, Bill will talk about techniques such as motion graphics, using music to set the tone, using voice overs and the biggest mistakes he sees people make in editing a trailer. Stay tuned!

We released the book Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul 2 days ago. Not counting those who bought from the Amazon site or from Apple, we have had 1800 downloads so far. Not bad since this is a very niche interest book. I want to emphasize this book is FREE until October 1 on our site. After which it goes to $4.99 for all premium digital copies (Kindle, Nook, iBook) but there will always be a free pdf (text only, no URLs, pictures, charts, video) for those who just want the facts.

Also, today is the last day to RSVP for our book launch party in New York on September 19 from 6-8pm. We have about 50 places left at last count so if you’re in town, join us.

An interview I did with Cheap Fast Movie Thoughts was just published.  Here’s an excerpt:

What’s the biggest misconception that filmmakers have about distribution?

SHERI: That there is some kind of magic distributor fairy waiting to give them a fat check and make their dreams come true. I hear many, many times filmmakers say ‘we’re artists, making films is supposed to be fun’ and I am sure thinking about the business of art isn’t fun to them. But it is imperative. As my filmmaker friend Greg Bayne says, “You may not be interested in the business, but you probably like to eat.”

It is your responsibility to your investors, your crew, yourself to take charge of this and have a solid plan from the outset that isn’t solely dependent on a distributor coming along and making your film whole, which is to say paying a minimum guarantee that recoups your production budget with interest. VERY few of those deals exist now, no matter what producer’s agents and distributors like to say.

Ask many questions of anyone currently working in film today and if you can get them to admit it, there aren’t big upfront deals going on, there aren’t a lot of presales going on and the likelihood of most independent films recouping is slim. Don’t base your estimations on box office returns either. Until there is a number revealed that shows how much was spent to get those returns, you don’t have a clear picture of profit. A film that has a $10 million box office may have spent $15 or $20 million to get that.

Setting aside the goal of recoupment though, it is more than possible to start building a career off of the attention you can get from a release. That’s where having a prestige festival premiere comes in. Say what you like about the films that play Sundance or how difficult it is to get in, that festival has the cache to change the life of your film and your career simply because of the amount of press coverage it receives and that is why it is so coveted and competitive.

For the rest of the interview, head on over to Cheap Fast Movie Thoughts.

Many times when independent filmmakers send a request for help to me, they attach a link to their film trailer. This is the video they have on Youtube and on their website as a representation of their film, a reason to see it or buy it. Often, they are terrible. They are too long, they are too slow, there is no sense of what the film is about or why I would want to see it. A trailer should not be a 3 minute cut down version of your film. It is an advertisement meant to pique the interest of prospective viewers and there is a talent to making them work. This isn’t a job for your intern.

I asked professional trailer editor Bill Woolery if he would share his knowledge about what makes a good trailer, what are common mistakes he sees so many filmmakers (and distributors and studios) making, how to use trailers if you are trying to fundraise and what techniques are commonly used to ensure action is taken. Your trailer should make people say “I’ve got to see this film!” or “I want to donate money to help it reach its goal.”

For over 2 decades, Bill worked as a trailer editor for major studios and production companies on their theatrical and TV campaigns. He has since moved into editing trailers for documentaries and non profit humanitarian projects  for use in fund raising.  He has established himself as the go-to trailer expert for documentary and independent film producers and is often asked to speak and critique trailers in seminars hosted by Carole Dean and other high-profile members in the documentary community. His regularly scheduled “Trailer Clinics” help give filmmakers the tips and tools to improve their fundraising trailers.

An example of Bill’s past work is the trailer for The Unbearable Lightness of Being. “My boss tossed me the project saying, ‘We don’t know what to do with this, so come up with something.’  It turned out to be one of my most satisfying challenges. Janácek’s chamber music set the tone for the editing.  The film tanked at the box office, but AFI now includes it on their 100 best American films list.  A young Daniel Day-Lewis stars with Juliette Binoche.”

How does editing a trailer differ from editing an entire film?

“These are not only two different styles of editing, they’re two distinctly different realties.  A trailer incorporates the same scenes as the full-length piece but uses a totally different “language” to express them.  When filmmakers come to me, it’s often because they tried cutting their own trailers.  After much labor in the edit room, they were never able to achieve a sequence that felt like a trailer.  There is a characteristic pace and flow to a trailer you don’t find in narrative editing.  It’s the same material but presented with an urgency and immediacy that’s very different from your whole film.

A feature documentary has emotional moments, but a trailer is basically one emotional moment from beginning to end.  It takes you immediately into an emotional reality and holds you there until it drops you at the end.  During that span, it must also convey specific information: who the characters are, what the story is about, why the characters are doing what they’re doing.  Most importantly, it must answer the questions: Why is this doc (or feature) something you should see?  And why is it important to see it now?

These are a few of the many elements that make a good trailer and constructing it is more complicated than most narrative filmmakers realize.  A well-edited trailer is a very busy ‘world.’  At every moment you’re moving through multiple arcs: characters’ arc, the main story arc, the emotional arcs.  They’re all intertwined.  It’s a lot to keep track of.  And over-arching all that is ‘the build.’

The ‘build’ is probably the element that most clearly defines the difference between trailer editing and feature editing.  A trailer must maintain a continuous forward momentum.  This momentum usually picks up in speed and urgency in the second half of the trailer.”

How to evaluate a potential trailer editor for your project?

“Beware the editor/producer/filmmaker who has some downtime and says, ‘Sure, I can cut you a trailer.  I’ll do it as a favor.’  Also, stay away from anyone who thinks a trailer is basically a cut-down of the feature – because you will get a cut-down of the feature and not a trailer.”

Why should a trailer editor be used instead of just an intern or the editor already working on your film?

“During the past 10 years, the role of the trailer has changed, especially in the funding strategy of documentary and indie production.  Traditionally, trailers were edited by the filmmakers themselves because (a) budgets were tight and (b) they had the edit system and media sitting there in their second bedroom.  ’Outsourcing’ a trailer didn’t make sense.   Over time, with the development of the Internet, people became accustomed to seeing videos (addicted to seeing them, really).  Eventually, the pitch, the proposal, the text on your website – all of these took second place to the video trailer.  It was as if your project wasn’t real unless your intended audience could ‘see’ something on the screen.   Today, some distributors or funders will ask to see your trailer before talking to you. So the trailer has become the most critical element to getting your project funded or distributed.  It needs to be really good, really effective.  Paying a trailer editor is now considered a sound investment.” (I totally agree!)

What are the different types of trailers?  such as theatrical, TV etc

If  you check the Doc Trailers page of my website you’ll find this:

Fundraising Trailer – the key element to your project’s success

Work-in-Progress Trailer – to find your finishing funds

Showcase Trailer – specifically pitched to buyers/distributors/broadcasters

Sizzle / Teaser trailers – to generate buzz when you don’t have much to show

Theatrical Trailers – the all-purpose video that establishes your project’s identity

The majority of my editing projects now involve FUNDRAISING trailers.  As a trailer category, it’s wide open because it depends on what you have to show, how good your footage is and what you want to accomplish with it.  In terms of length, it could be anywhere from 3 to 8 minutes long, possible up to 12 if you’ve got a compelling story and/or extraordinary footage that can sustain it that long.  It also has to do with who it’s intended for: a foundation, grant qualification, a private funder.  Research your intended viewer and find out what they’re looking for.

Everyone agrees a trailer should not reveal the end of the story.  For theatrical-style trailers that is certainly the case.  But when you’re putting together a fundraising trailer the purpose is to sell your idea to people who can share your vision and might invest in it.  They need to see what they’re buying – all of it.  It’s important for them to know you have a satisfying ending so don’t hesitate to show it.

WORK-IN-PROGRESS trailers run longer so the viewer, usually a major funder, can feel confident about the project’s progress, that their investment is worthwhile and in capable hands.  In terms of length it’s determined by the funder’s needs and could be anywhere between 4 to 14 minutes.

Every project needs a THEATRICAL-STYLE trailer.  This is the one that’s used as the all-purpose “calling card” for your project, the one you post on YouTube and Vimeo and the project’s website.  It’s normally made after your doc is finished and mastered – but sometimes there’s need for it before the projects gets to that point.  This kind of trailer is short, usually 1.5  to 3 minutes.  It’s energetic and dramatic and makes no obvious solicitation for funds and does not reveal the end of story.  The cliff-hanger ending that works so well for commercial entertainment trailers is also the most effective “out” for documentary trailers.

Finally, there are TEASER or SIZZLE trailers.  These terms are used pretty much interchangeable.  Their purpose is generating advanced buzz for the project.  In both cases, they’re often put together with rip-o-matic images from the Net with a voice-over telling you how great the project will be once the viewer contributes the funds to realize it.  These kinds of trailers might include a “pedigree” montage of the filmmaker’s past projects – if they exist.  A teaser is short, 30 seconds to a minute and a half, unless the “past projects” are very prestigious and need screen time to be showcased.”

In part 2, Bill will talk about techniques such as motion graphics, using music to set the tone, using voice overs and the biggest mistakes he sees people make in editing a trailer. Stay tuned!

It’s a shocking title coming from me, I know and I had a hard time typing it. It isn’t as though I hate distributors, it is just that I see them largely as exploiting filmmakers’ work where the filmmaker receives very little in the process. A post yesterday from Seth Godin’s Domino Project made me stop and think about it from their side. His post takes the publishers’ view but that is the distributors’ view in the book world. The situations are the same.

In his post, Godin explains that publishers (distributors) take on the financial risk of bringing work to an unknown audience which is a huge risk and why they take the lion’s share of the profit. They don’t know if their risk will pay off until these unknown people buy and, to mitigate the risk, they have to spend even more money on getting lots of attention from strangers over and over again, which puts them even deeper into the hole.

Next time you are wondering why you can’t get a distributor to take your film, think about what you would do in their situation? Whenever you make a film with no identifiable audience, no connection to an audience, no identifiable marketing hooks (like genre or star quality actors), no festival wins from pedigree fests, you are drastically reducing your chances of being picked up. I know you’ve heard this, but every week I am contacted by filmmakers who ignore all of this so the message isn’t sinking in. If you don’t have the previous situations for your film, you can’t get attention unless 1)your film is exceptional AND 2) you have a ton of money to spend on getting attention in the form of advertising and publicity and then you are taking on the risk of the distributor, trying to get attention from strangers and hoping it will pay off. For distributors, they can better afford the risk because they have lots of titles in the arsenal. You don’t. So you are left with the choice of “giving up more and more freedom and cash to [distributors] in exchange for their taking the risk of finding, alerting and selling to strangers,” hoping to be picked, taking whatever deal they offer and having no say in what is subsequently done with your work

…or

doing the hard work upfront by building an interested group of supporters for your work, to gain their trust and permission for communication, to regularly speak to them and to get their buy in BEFORE the work exists. It is much more efficient than selling to strangers after the fact. “The speed, freedom and control will transform the way you [work] as well as how you engage with your audience.”

——————————

NB

I hear a lot from artists and art critics who say you shouldn’t promote until you have work worth promoting. I completely agree. Please don’t use this as advice for how to “promote” because building a relationship with an engaged audience is separate from promotion. Promotion is one way communication. It is the thing that advertising was made for. It isn’t the thing that is best accomplished through using social media, contrary to what corporations and “digital agencies” think.

What I am saying is genuinely become interested in who your work would touch, delight and become emotionally connected to them. Start thinking about who “they” are while you are in the process of shaping your work. Start building up the relationship with them because you truly want to reach them. I think this is what expressing yourself is all about right? Reaching others? Chances are they are a lot like you so this shouldn’t be a difficult thing. You may not even do it online, choosing real life instead. The thing online allows for is finding your kindreds all over the world rather than the limited circle in your immediate vicinity. Those friends will become your base of support and won’t be able to stop themselves from telling others and online tools are a great free carrier for word of mouth, the most authentic advertising there is. When you have that support, the financial burden becomes lighter in that you can crowdfund to make work, you can spend little to reach the audience, and you will attract partners who want to help you service those you haven’t been able to reach yet without the absolute need for you to give up rights and control over your work.

This group isn’t built overnight, or even over six months. Get started right now. You need this, they need this connection.

I have been reading some of the articles about the film project that premiered at Sundance this year, Life in a Day, and is now being released theatrically by National Geographic Entertainment, YouTube and Cinedigm Digital Cinema Corp. For anyone who doesn’t know, producer Ridley Scott and  director Kevin MacDonald requested anyone to send in footage from the day July 24, 2010; for most a typical day in their life. The team received over 81,000 submissions of over 4,500 hours of footage from which to cut together a 95 minute documentary.

I did not take part in this “experimental” form of filmmaking so anyone who did please correct me. I suppose there was a form to sign that said you agree not to demand any form of compensation or ownership over this work. You agreed that your footage would become the property of the production and they could do whatever they want with it, including copyright it and profit from it. Fine, that was your choice. I think the thing that gauls me is they produced a film from your footage and expect you to sign up for the privilege now of becoming part of the “marketing SWAT team” to promote it and pay to go see it. You’ve received a co director end credit (no credit on imdb that I can see, but there is a large cast list), but are left out of any decision making and do not enjoy any benefits of working closely with some pretty powerful industry insiders. In my book, this is an exercise in exploitation.

This experiment isn’t fan building or relationship building that benefits both sides. You were used to create a profit making vehicle for large corporations and now they want you to help them promote it so they can make more money. If you aren’t considered a close member of the team, you have no decision making power, you aren’t profit sharing in any way, the film premiered on Youtube during Sundance but is no longer available online for you to view a film you helped to create while they take it out to theaters and make money from it, then this isn’t true collaboration. Outside of a credit on a theatrical film end credit roll, there is nothing in this relationship for you.

The point I am making to my indie filmmaker friends is this. Don’t exploit your audience. True collaboration means there is something in the relationship for all parties. Don’t build up a following with the sole intention of using them for ideas, a workforce and profit that benefits only you.

I realize that good marketing is made up of a mix of tools. One of those tools is advertising and it is probably the easiest to use and the most expensive. In order to get attention for every window of release, Hollywood studios spend buckets of money on advertising because it is the quickest and least painful way to get attention. Do they realize that they are not building any lasting assets for their company when they do this? They are renting space over and over instead of retaining consumer attention that they can stimulate again and again. But that takes work and when the budget is reduced (or gone), access to the rental space is reduced too.

I’m sure you know that your website is the biggest piece of online real estate you own. You control it and when you attract audience attention, it is up to you to keep it and to keep in touch for the future. Studios don’t do this. They really don’ t see it as useful to contact audience directly or to hear directly from them. Just have a look at the Warner Bros. site as an example. You can fill out a survey that basically asks you to be their web designer. You can click on the Facebook link which takes you to their page where they have hundreds of thousands of likes. But look at how the page is used. Just advertising the titles.  A few comments are left but rare that they ever answer them. To connect is damn hard work and if you can just buy everything, why bother?

But I’m thinking indie filmmakers can’t buy everything, you can’t just buy an audience. This is why you need to pull an audience to you rather than push a message out. Pulling is much harder than pushing, much more time and much more work. Think of this pulling as building assets to continue to attract and add value to your audience so you can minimize the amount of cash spent on renting advertising space and so you can build and maintain a sustainable audience.

What’s an asset?  A strong website that has heavy traffic derived from SEO, link authority and interesting content. A blog that repeatedly attracts the interest of your audience because you know what they are interested in and you find or create information to give them. This builds your email signup list and RSS subscriptions (the basic message here is they WANT to hear from you, you have their permission to communicate with them). A social media presence that attracts a like minded community to your work. Communities expand over time. If you are working for the long term, you want this continued expansion.

Why are these assets? Because in order to monetize your work, first you have to  build up interest in what you do and a network of people who want to support you. It is you, your talent and your knowledge that keeps them coming back, not a PPC ad, not a half baked contest. YOU and what you have to share.

It’s going to entail work and lots of time though.

I was listening to a podcast on the Pixability site last week that was supposed to be about using video in your publicity efforts. I am not really sure I took much away about that subject. Their angle was using video press releases instead of text ones. I get why Pixability sees things that way, but I am not sure about that approach both as a journalist and someone who courts publicity. I did take away some great, succinct advice from the speaker, Cameron Herold,  on the most effective uses of PR and understanding exactly what PR is. I will share these with you over the next few posts.

The Right Mindset for PR

It is best to look at PR as a service you are offering to journalists. You aren’t selling a product to them, you are providing them with story ideas. Story ideas are something they need on a regular basis. If you keep up a blog, you know what I am talking about.

Do not send a one sheet, which is a piece of sales material typically designed to attract buyers like at a film market. There is no story hook in a one sheet, nor is there a story angle in some typical press releases. Journalists are not in the business of simply promoting your film (the ones whose sites are not owned by studios/distributors anyway), they are in the business of developing and writing a good story for their audience. How does your film or your work help them do that? Hint: it should be unique. It is NOT that you have made a film. The easier you can make a journalist’s work, the more likely they are to write and publish a story.

You should be researching what these journalists write about and what their audience typically reads on the site or in their publications and find a way to tie your work into their interests. This doesn’t mean send mass press releases to a big list of journalists (believe me, I am still getting these from PR people who should know better because I was on the Sundance press list), it means crafting a custom pitch to select journalists who can help you achieve your objectives. Those objectives could be audience attention, but they could also be industry attention for your career.

Finding Journalists

A few resources were offered and most were geared more toward the needs of a corporate entity, like PR Newswire and Vocus which caters to the masses. Masses are not what you want. Tightly focused, interest driven publications are your goal. First start with Google and look for journalists in a particular region (if you want to promote a screening or if you are shooting in that location or if you are from that location), or journalists who cover a very specific topic (something related to the interests of the audience of your film). Again these could be industry publications (covering Jewish filmmakers, or women filmmakers, or LGBT filmmakers) too. My recommendations for finding journalists is not to look for lists because those only encourage you to send one email en masse which is the lazy approach and unlikely to result in much coverage. This is going to take some time and effort, research and reading to figure out the best fit for your story. If you take that little extra time, your email is less likely to end up in the mass delete column in a journalist’s inbox.

You may also want to target journalists who have syndicated columns which can result in your story spreading through many different publications, even worldwide. Once it starts to spread, other publications that aren’t even part of the syndication are likely to pick it up.

Next up…finding an angle and crafting a pitch

I was watching this very brilliant presentation from artist Shea Hembrey. It is funny, entertaining and gives true insight into a creative mind. As a Southern girl, I can relate to Shea’s background very well!

During the presentation, he talks about how he judges “art.” He said after visiting hundreds of exhibitions and seeing a lot of work, he identified what he found missing from the experience and from a lot of art. One was work that was appealing to a broad public, meaning that a lot of art is not accessible to most people. They can’t connect with what the artist is trying to show. I think many people also cannot connect with the artist as a person which helps in making the art accessible. Some art is just too personal to the artist with no meaning for anyone else and many artists are introverts, preferring their work to speak for them. If you are an introverted artist making work that only speaks to you, how are you going to attract people to you work? As filmmakers, you have to consider this. Are you making work that only appeals to you? If so, it is inaccessible and there is no business model for that. Which is fine, just know going in that you can’t sustain yourself on inaccessible art. Also if we, the audience, cannot connect with you as a person given today’s reality that everyone is personally accessible through multiple social networks, you will find it increasingly harder to exist as an artist.

I know, it isn’t a popular concept. Are there artists in history that managed to rise above the noise and become a “name” without the need (or existence) of social networking? Of course, but in comparison to all artists, you can name them on a few hands and in the past, there were very few outlets one could use to rise above the din. Traditional mass media in the form of art critics was about it. Now there are thousands of outlets and it is just too easy to access them not to be actively doing that. As an artist, I wouldn’t want to hope I get “discovered,” I would want to make sure of it and actively make it happen.

Shea says he developed 2 sets of criteria for judging art he would want in his exhibition (a biennial that he devised. You’ll hear the all about it in the presentation.). One was the Meemaw test (love the term!) which was if he couldn’t explain the art to his grandmother in 5 minutes, then it was not accessible enough and wouldn’t be considered. The other was the three H’s, head, heart and hand. Great art has interesting intellectual ideas for the head; it has passion and soul and can touch people in an emotional way for the heart; and it has great craftsmanship and technique made by hand. I think this is a great way to critique films (both independent and studio made). The work that lasts, garners audience, and succeeds must have all of these things. Just as Shea was having trouble finding these things in the exhibition art world, I have trouble finding these things in the film world. Many independent films are either not accessible or do not have head, heart and hand.

I bet if you examine the film that inspired you to be a filmmaker, you’ll find that it had all three of these things. And you can explain that film in five minutes to someone and they can “get” it. When making work of your own, consider if it has head, heart, hand.

This is a repost of a very short piece on the REACH Personal Branding newsletter written by editor Rachel Gogos. I thought many of you would benefit from it since I speak often of the need for an artist to build a personal identity (a brand). If you want to hear more from REACH, sign up for their newsletter.  I will translate a few of these points so you can understand how they would be appropriate for artists.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Times are tough for many economically. People and companies are trying to stretch their budgets and do more with less, less people, less time, less money.

Here are 5 tactics to to build your online brand if you have no blog site and no budget. (Sheri’s comment-get a blog! many are free)

1. Comment on other people’s blog posts. Who are the leaders in your industry? Identify them, follow them and then start to make thoughtful, consistent comments on their posts. Over time everyone recognizes and values a fan as long as they’re adding to the conversation. Sheri’s comment-if you are reading industry news everyday, and you should be, you will know these people. Their names come up over and over again.

2. Create a Facebook Fan Page for your business. You can start out by uploading your logo to the avatar. Post a well-shot video (doesn’t have to be professionally shot). Get active on Facebook – it’s the #1 social media tool by leaps and bounds. Sheri’s comment-create a professional page for yourself and on it you will only post news and information related to your professional interests. This should be a separate page from your personal profile. The personal page is for your intimate friends and family.

3. Recently delivered a presentation? Turn it into an e-book and offer it up on your Facebook Fan page for free or for a moderate amount of money. Sheri’s comment-this may not be appropriate for all of you, but if you have been asked to participate in a seminar, workshop or panel and prepared with notes or slides, you can do this with it when you are finished. Repurpose your by products.

4. If you have a sizable list offer to host a seminar by a credible resource on a particular topic that your target audience can benefit from. Sheri’s comment-this is especially appropriate if you are a documentarian. If you have a sizable list of supporters of a certain cause, you could offer to host a seminar for them, featuring an expert on that topic

5. Comment on blogs hosted by MAJOR third parties such as the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, People Magazine, USA Today, Huffington Post – some of the biggest news brands on the web. These have lots of Google juice. Sheri’s comment-this could be said about major third party sites specific to the film industry too. The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Screen Daily, indieWire, etc. What’s Google juice? It means these sites rank very high in the search engine. If your name is associated with these sites, it raises your brand (your name) higher too.

Rachel Gogos is a personal brand builder that specializes in building strong and noticeable online identities and highly differentiated WordPress blog sites.

Producers of Marketing and Distribution should know their deliverables. If you don’t, don’t worry many inexperienced filmmakers don’t know all that is expected either to deliver the film to a sales agent/distributor for a theatrical and/or DVD deal. But since you have elected to undertake the job of marketing AND distribution, you will need to be keeping up with these elements all along the production phase.

I asked my friend Orly Ravid from The Film Collaborative to give me a list of the kind of deliverables distributors are requesting right now in contracts. She sent me a few and they all seem pretty boilerplate similar.

Initial Delivery Items

A.            PUBLICITY MATERIAL

1.            Key Art – Physical delivery of key art in fully layered photoshop files on CD.

2.            Advertising/Publicity Material – All publicity which may have been prepared in connection with the Picture, but not less than one complete set of all advertising materials available, including, without limitation, press books, posters and publicity material.  In addition, a written report of all additional photography in existence, including, without limitation, special shoots, photo agency art, etc. These materials may be delivered on CD or DVD.

3.             Artwork Images - Physical delivery of fifty (50) or more color digital images of cast/characters as they appear in the film (no behind-the-scenes) with a corresponding index in English including appropriate captions identifying the subject and scene depicted in each digital image.  Any and all approvals or other authorizations that may be required in connection with the use of said digital images will be secured and delivered.  These materials may be delivered on CD or DVD.

4.            Press Kits – Three (3) press kits which include a synopsis, production notes, biographies for key players, director, producer, screenwriter, and credit list of both cast and crew (and their English translations, if in a foreign language)

5.            Electronic Press Kit – If available, delivery of EPK Materials on Digital Betacam Videotape.

B.            DOCUMENTATION MATERIAL

1.              E&O APPLICATION – Completed and signed application for Producer’s Errors & Omissions insurance (Distributor to supply form).

2.            CAST/TALENT/PERSONNEL AGREEMENTS – Fully executed agreements for all cast, crew and other entities and related personnel who have been accorded paid advertising and/or screen credit.  For any person listed in the billing block or main titles who does not have an agreement, please deliver a signed Certificate of Ownership (form to be provided by Distributor).  ANY CAST/TALENT/ PERSONNEL AGREEMENT CONTAINING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, EXCLUDED AD OBLIGATIONS, PAID AD, KEY ART, OR ON-SCREEN CREDIT OBLIGATIONS, ARTWORK TITLE ENTITLEMENTS, CREDIT TIES, NAME AND LIKENESS APPROVALS OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS OR TIES SHALL BE DELIVERED TO DISTRIBUTOR WITHIN TEN (10) BUSINESS DAYS OF EXECUTION OF THIS ACQUISITION AGREEMENT.  If there are no such credit obligations included in these agreements, they may be delivered at any time up to the Initial Delivery Date.

(a)            Cast/Talent/Personnel Agreements must include a waiver of injunctive relief, “work-made-for-hire” language, and allow for the use of name and likeness.  If such agreements do not include the aforementioned language, Licensor will obtain signed Certificates of Ownership (form to be provided by Distributor).

(b)            Composer Agreements shall include the above-mentioned language and provide for underscoring on an all media buy-out basis (Distributor to provide a Composer Certificate of Ownership upon Licensor’s request), and evidence of payment shall be delivered for each composer of underscoring for the Picture.

(c)            Agreements shall be delivered with an accompanying English translation if not in English originally.

(d)            In the event that the Cast/Talent/Personnel Agreements for the Picture do not meet the above requirements and Licensor delivers Certificates of Ownership, Licensor will also deliver the defective Personnel Agreements if these agreements include any credit obligations, artwork title obligations, name and likeness provisions, or any other provisions that would have any bearing on the creation of artwork or marketing materials for the Picture.

3.              CREDIT INFORMATION – Statements and/or lists in English summarizing all contractual credit/likeness obligations applicable to the Picture, including, but not limited to the following.  Credits must comply with all applicable guild and union requirements, and any and all guild related waivers or determination must be obtained prior to Delivery.  LICENSOR MUST INFORM DISTRIBUTOR OF ANY EXCLUDED AD OBLIGATIONS, PAID AD, KEY ART OR ON-SCREEN CREDIT OBLIGATIONS, ARTWORK TITLE ENTITLEMENTS, CREDIT OR LIKENESS TIES, NAME AND LIKENESS APPROVALS, LOGO OBLIGATIONS, OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS, OBLIGATIONS, OR TIES RELATING TO THE CREATION OF ARTWORK OR MARKETING MATERIALS, WITHIN TEN (10) BUSINESS DAYS OF EXECUTION OF THE ACQUISITION AGREEMENT.

(a)            Screen Credits

(i)            A list of all contractual screen credit obligations.  (If there is no contractual obligation to accord a certain credit which has been accorded on screen, the “obligation” should be stated as “Licensor’s Discretion”).

(ii)            A typed list of the final main and end credits as they ultimately appear on screen.

(b)            Paid Advertising Credits

(i)            Artwork title credit obligations, inclusive of proper positioning information.

(ii)            Billing block credit obligations, inclusive of proper positioning information.

(iii)          Excluded advertising credit obligations.

(iv)            Any and all logos that Licensor is contractually obligated to include below the billing block in paid advertising, together with the underlying agreements substantiating any logo obligations, such as Sales Agency Agreements and Financing Agreements.  Any such underlying agreements shall be delivered to Distributor within ten (10) business days of execution of the Acquisition Agreement.  Logos must be provided on CD as “.psd” files in full color and B/W.

(c)            Key Art Obligations & Photograph/Likeness Approvals

(i)            A list of all cast members who are contractually entitled to appear in the key art and paid ads for the Picture, and/or whose contractual entitlement is tied to one or more other persons in the Picture, and/or who have been granted approval rights (as well as specifics regarding those rights) over the photographic images or artistic likenesses used in any artwork or marketing materials for the Picture (e.g. percentage of kills alone, percentage of kills with one other person, etc.).

4.            STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RESTRICTIONS – If requested, a statement in English from Licensor listing all dubbing, subtitling, editing, cutting and any other third party restrictions applicable to the Picture of which Distributor and its licensees must be aware.

5.            CHAIN OF TITLE

(a)            All documents evidencing proof of ownership and all documents evidencing proof of payment in connection with any transfer of rights (including, but not limited to, Writer Agreements, Option/Purchase Agreements, Assignments of Copyright; Assignments of Rights, etc) (translated into English if not in English originally);

(b)             A filed U.S. Copyright Registration form for the Screenplay.   If this form has not yet been submitted to the US Copyright Office, please allow us to approve the filing beforehand in order to avoid the time and cost associated with incorrect filings.  In the event that the endorsed registration form has not yet been received from the US Copyright Office (USCO), we will accept on a provisional basis a filing packet consisting of:

• a copy of the Form PA as filed, a copy of proof of payment, and a copy of the courier receipt evidencing date of submission.  When received, a copy of the endorsed Form PA must be sent by Licensor to Distributor; or
• a copy of the Form PA as filed, a receipt from Thomson CompuMark or other filing agency evidencing date of filing, and a copy of proof of payment. When received, a copy of the endorsed Form PA must be sent by Licensor to Distributor; or
• a copy of the electronic Service Request Detail from the USCO reflecting the online filing of a Form CO (equivalent to the old Form PA), a copy of the e-mail payment confirmation, a copy of USCO bar-coded Deposit Copy Shipping Slip for Deposit Copies Sent to Accompany an Electronically Submitted Application, and a copy of the FedEx Airbill evidencing shipment of the DVD to the Copyright Office. When received, a copy of the endorsed Form CO must be sent by Licensor to Distributor.

(c)            A filed U.S. Copyright Registration form for the Motion Picture.   If this form has not yet been submitted to the US Copyright Office, please allow us to approve the filing beforehand in order to avoid the time and cost associated with incorrect filings.  In the event that the endorsed registration form has not yet been received from the US Copyright Office (USCO), we will accept on a provisional basis a filing packet consisting of:

• a copy of the Form PA as filed, a copy of proof of payment, and a copy of the courier receipt evidencing date of submission.  When received, a copy of the endorsed Form PA must be sent by Licensor to Distributor; or
• a copy of the Form PA as filed, a receipt from Thomson CompuMark or other filing agency evidencing date of filing, and a copy of proof of payment. When received, a copy of the endorsed Form PA must be sent by Licensor to Distributor; or
• a copy of the electronic Service Request Detail from the USCO reflecting the online filing of a Form CO (equivalent to the old Form PA), a copy of the e-mail payment confirmation, a copy of USCO bar-coded Deposit Copy Shipping Slip for Deposit Copies Sent to Accompany an Electronically Submitted Application, and a copy of the FedEx Airbill evidencing shipment of the DVD to the Copyright Office. When received, a copy of the endorsed Form CO must be sent by Licensor to Distributor.

(d)            Title Report dated within sixty (60) days of Delivery, and a Title Opinion, if available;

(e)            Copyright Report dated within sixty (60) days of Delivery; and

(f)            Two (2) original Certificates of Authorship.

6.            IRS FORMS:

• For domestic licensors, one (1) completed and signed original Form W-9.
• For foreign licensors, one (1) completed and signed original Form W-8BEN.  Distributor will provide all foreign licensors with full instructions on how to correctly complete this form.

7.            FACT SHEET:  One (1) completed original Fact Sheet in English.

COMPLETE DELIVERY ITEMS

A.            FILM AND VIDEO MATERIAL:

1.              Pre-Print Elements

(a)            Lab access to the 35mm fully assembled original negative, if available

(b)            Lab access to the 35mm Interpositive of the full feature, if available

2.            Videotape Elements

(a)            Physical delivery of the following high definition (“HD”) videotape masters:

For 1.85:1 or 1.78:1 films:

HD Cam SR 16:9 (1.33 side-matted)

HD Cam SR 16:9 full frame (1.78)

For 2.35:1 (or other scope measurement) films:

HD Cam SR 16:9 (1.33 side-matted)

HD Cam SR 16:9 full frame (1.78)

HD Cam SR 16:9 (2.35)

Each HD videotape master shall be recorded at 1080/23.98Psf. Each HD videotape master shall have the 2-track LT/RT printmaster on channels 1 and 2, and the 2-track LT/RT M&E on channels 3 and 4, and the 5.1 Printmaster on Channels 5-10. Textless backgrounds for the main, insert and end titles shall appear sixty (60) seconds after Picture in each videotape master. The textless backgrounds shall be color corrected to match the corresponding texted shots.

(b) Physical delivery of a Digital Betacam NTSC broadcast quality 16×9 anamorphic videotape master (respecting the original aspect ratio of the film) and 4×3 1.33:1 master with stereo mix on channels 1 & 2 and separate music and effects on channels 3 & 4 and the textless background sections included after the Picture. These elements may not be conversions.

(c)            Physical delivery of the following Sound Elements on DVD-R, DA-88 or Magneto Optical Disc or Harddrive conformed to the final version of the Picture:

Stereo 2 track Printmaster

5.1 Printmaster

5.1 M & E printmaster w/ Dialogue Guide on Ch. 7 and Optional Audio on Ch. 8

Separate Dialogue, Music and Effects Stereo Stems

Separate Dialogue, Music and Effects 5.1 Stems

3.              Promotional and DVD Added Value Materials – Licensor shall deliver a minimum of twenty (20) minutes of added value materials for promotional purposes or for the DVD release, including, without limitation, all outtakes, deleted scenes, and trims, soundtracks (whether negative, positive or magnetic) produced for or used in the process of preparing the Picture, “Making of”/ “Behind the Scenes” featurettes, storyboards, interviews, alternate openings/endings, or commentaries.  Additionally, Licensor shall deliver all added value materials resulting from any theatrical release of the Picture, whether inside or outside the Territory. Should Distributor elect to create extra commentary or other added value content in connection with the video release of the Picture, Licensor shall cause the individuals listed in Paragraph 1 of the Agreement (i.e., the director, stars, and producers of the Picture) to render services in connection therewith. Delivery of A/V materials shall be on HDCam (if available) with Stereo Comp on Channels 1&2 and Separate Production audio and Music as .wav/.aiff files delivered on DVD.

4.              Foreign Language Dub Versions –

(a)            If available, physical delivery of the Neutral Spanish (i.e. non-Castilian) overlay.

(b)            If available, free access to the Neutral French (i.e. non-Canadian) overlay.

5.              SHOOTING SCRIPT

(a)            Physical delivery of the final shooting script of the Picture.

(b)            If available, physical delivery of the final shooting script of the Picture on disk.

6.             DIALOGUE CONTINUITY/SPOTTING LIST

Combined dialogue action continuity and spotting list containing all spotted dialogue, narration, sound vocals, all opening titles and complete end credits appearing in Picture, as well as a cut-by-cut description of the action of the Picture in its final form, with footage and frame counts showing footage in, footage out and total duration of each line of dialogue (translated into English if not in English originally).

B.            TRAILER MATERIAL:

1.              Videotape Elements

(a)            Physical delivery of a Digital Betacam NTSC broadcast quality videotape master with stereo mix (if applicable) on channels 1 & 2 and separate music and effects on channels 3 & 4 and the textless background sections (if applicable) included after the Picture.

(b)            Physical delivery of Sound Elements on DA-88 or Magneto Optical Disc conformed to the final version of the trailer, with separate Narration, Dialogue, Music, and Effects tracks.

2.              Foreign Language Dub Versions – If available, free access to the Neutral Spanish (i.e. non-Castilian) overlay.

3.              Foreign Language Dub Versions – If available, free access to the Neutral French overlay.

4.              Dialogue Continuity/Spotting List – Required only if Distributor uses Licensor’s Trailer.

Combined dialogue action continuity and spotting list containing all spotted dialogue, narration, sound vocals, all opening titles and complete end credits appearing in Trailer, as well as a cut-by-cut description of the action of the Picture in its final form, with footage and frame counts showing footage in, footage out and total duration of each line of dialogue (translated into English if not in English originally).

C.             DOCUMENTATION MATERIAL

1.              MUSIC DOCUMENTATION

(a)            Music Cue Sheet – A Music Cue Sheet in English stating for each composition in the Picture: the title, the composer(s), publisher(s), copyright owner(s), performer(s), arranger(s), usage, performing rights society, timecodes indicating where each cue appears in the Picture (“ins” and “outs”), as well as the film footage and running time.

(b)              Music Licenses – Fully executed synchronization and master use licenses on an all media buy-out basis for each item of licensed music used in the Picture with the Term stated as “in perpetuity” and the Territory stated as “the world” for each license.  Evidence of payment under each synchronization and master use license and composer agreement shall also be delivered.  Licenses and Agreements shall be translated into English if not in English originally.

2.              CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN – One (1) notarized original of a Certificate of Origin.

3.              MPAA RATING – A paid rating certificate from the Motion Picture Code and Rating Administration of America, Inc., no more restrictive than R.

4.              GUILD AFFILIATION LETTER – A letter in English, signed by the producer or director of the Picture setting forth all United States and foreign guilds and unions whose members rendered services on the Picture (for specific guilds, see below). If none, then a letter in English, signed by the producer or director of the Picture setting forth that no members of any United States or foreign guilds and unions rendered services on the Picture.

(a)            SAG:  If the Picture was produced under the jurisdiction of SAG:  Completed copies of the SAG “Final Cast Report” covering all actors engaged on the Picture, including without limitation actors rendering singing, looping and “voice-over” services in post-production. (b)            DGA:  If the Picture was produced under the jurisdiction of the DGA:  The name, social security number, loan-out information (where appropriate) and job description of all DGA members engaged on the Picture; and the DGA approval of the final main and end title credits, signed by an authorized representative of the DGA.

(c)            WGA:  If the Picture is subject to WGA jurisdiction:  The name, address, social security number and loan-out information (where appropriate) for all writers receiving credit on the Picture; a copy of the final WGA notice of final determination or credit on the Picture, signed by an authorized representative of the WGA; and the WGA approval of the final main and end title credits, signed by an authorized representative of the WGA.

5.              ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS / STATEMENTS – As applicable, copies of all agreements and documents relating to the Picture not delivered as part of Initial Delivery delivered with an accompanying English translation if not in English originally, including, but not limited to:

(a)            Minor confirmations:  If applicable, and to the extent required by applicable law, all talent agreements for all minors shall be confirmed by the court.  In the event that court confirmation is not applicable, a letter from an attorney in the jurisdiction in which principal production took place stating that the agreements are valid, binding and enforceable under the laws of said jurisdiction shall be provided.

(b)            Nudity Riders:  If applicable, all actors appearing partially or wholly nude on-screen, or in simulated sex scenes, must give written consent to such nudity.  If Talent Agreements do not include nudity language, Licensor will obtain signed Nudity Riders (form to be provided by Distributor).  However, if an actor is a member of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), a SAG Nudity Rider must be provided even if language pertaining to nudity appears in Talent’s contract.

(c)            Clip Documentation:  If clips from other films are used in the Picture, Licensor shall provide copies of all necessary Clip Licenses, or permissions granting the rights to use the clips in the Picture (translated into English if not in English originally), and a proof of payment for each clip used.  Licensor shall also deliver a Clip Cue Sheet in English stating for each clip used in the Picture: the title of the original work, the licensor of the clip, the film footage and running time, and timecodes indicating where the clip appears in the Picture (“ins” and “outs”).

(d)            Releases – If requested, signed releases from all persons identified by name or likeness in the Picture, who do not have signed contracts.

(e)            Coverage – If requested, access to the original negative, answerprint, work picture, magnetic or digital soundtracks, filled music and effect tracks and the original sound recordings, of all alternative takes, cover shots looped dialogue lines and other materials (collectively referred to as “coverage”) for the purpose of re-transferring and / or conforming to rating requirements, broadcast standards and practices and censorship.

(f)            Dolby License – If applicable, a copy of the executed license agreement in full force and effect between the producer and Dolby Laboratories, Inc. in connection with the Picture, as well as a copy of the license with the appropriate digital entity (e.g. SRD, Sony Digital/SDDS or Digital Theater Systems).

(g)            Laboratory Access Letter – If delivering 35mm pre-print materials, Laboratory Access Letter in the form attached as Exhibit “E” to this Agreement, signed by the Licensor and each respective Laboratory and/or facility having possession of the preprint and sound materials for the Picture (all versions) and trailer(s), including film, sound and storage facilities.

(h) Negative Cost Statement – If delivering 35mm pre-print materials, a one line statement in English of the final negative cost of the Picture and signed by an officer of Licensor or a completion guarantor.

Whew! Best to print this out, organize it in a folder so you can keep track of the forms and other elements. While on bigger productions, many of the crew roles are tasked with keeping track of these items. On small productions, these things come as a surprise when they seek distribution agreements and to go back and pick these items up can be time/financially costly. Best to be prepared well in advance. Incidentally, Orly tells me that foreign distributors will often pay for delivery as part of the deal.

ACTORSandCREW is fully psyched to be featuring Sheri Moss Candler’s 411 for the PMD. PMD stands for Producer of Marketing and Distribution and this is the person in a production whose sole job is marketing and figuring out the distribution path for the film so the producer and the rest of the production crew can get on with their work. Sheri is an expert inbound marketing strategist who helps independent filmmakers build identities for themselves and their films. Through the use of online tools such as social networking, podcasts, blogs, online media publications and radio, she assists filmmakers in building an engaged and robust online community for their work that can be used to monetize effectively. She collaborates with filmmaker/author Jon Reiss (who coined the term PMD) in his TOTBO workshop series by teaching filmmakers about utilizing social media and building personal brands. For Sheri’s complete bio visit her site, here. Click here to read Shari’s original post