As much for my own benefit as anyone's, here's a list of those posts:

• Moving filmmakers to a transmedia business model
• Collaborative Transmedia Storytelling
• Transmedia Notation
• Crowdsourcing for Indies

Merry Christmas everyone!

I want to make it clear that I’m a hugely enthusiastic supporter of audience collaboration, transmedia, DIY distribution, crowdfunding and so on. And I’m very grateful to PttP generosity in making their report publicly available. But…

In all the movie industry turmoil amongst the explosion of free content and the theft of paid content, I’m worried that many independent filmmakers have a vision of the future blinkered by optimism and a fetishizing of the new. They see the world as we’d all like it to be and not the way it sometimes is.

That’s certainly not to say that I agree with Henry Jenkin’s comment in the LA times that our grandest ambitions might not be realised. (Surely he didn’t really say that, did he?) I believe they can be realized if we find the right approach and the right attitude of mind.

Where I agree with the PttP report is that we have to look beyond piracy and accept it as a way of life. That is effectively what the report is saying. All the nice words about the audience demanding content on their own terms is another way of reminding us that we’re powerless to stop them taking what they want. Piracy, shmiracy - I’m over it. It’s like losing a loved one – first the anger, then the depression, then the acceptance. You have to move on before you can see the opportunities. Outrageous government intrusion into our lives and infringing our civil liberties is definitely not the answer. We have to discover ways to survive in a new environment.

So here are three balancing ideas for indie filmmakers trying to make sense of the future:

•  don’t let the tail wag the dog
•  the audience relationship is only one of many
•  it’s always numbers game.

Don’t let the tail wag the dog

Collaboration with the audience does not mean loss of control, quite the opposite. Allow the audience to collaborate and participate on your terms: you decide the rules of engagement and you set the tone and flavour of that partnership. Don’t limit your concept of “collaboration” to production of the content – it can also be collaboration in the experience of the content.

If you find it desirable, ring-fence your script or parts of your storyworld and say “this belongs to me”. Then steer the audience to a new part of the storyworld: give them their own avenues for creative expression that don’t impinge on the direction you want to go.

Even contradictory narratives and opposing, perhaps malicious mashups of your video, say, will not damage your original content because they serve to show your ideas in relief. But for this to be true you have to be clear about your content, what it stands for and where it’s going – if your idea is wishy-washy and open for interpretation then sure you could run into trouble.

The audience relationship is only one of many

Have you walked into a bricks-and-mortar retailer recently and seen a straight-to-DVD sequel prominently displayed on a shelf? That loveless filler is there because of business relationships, not audience relationships. The people that made it couldn’t care less about the audience and nor could the retailer: it’s nothing personal, just business. It’s made-to-order fodder and it happens with books and all kinds of other content.

You’ll also find that behind many, supposedly “viral” YouTube video sensations is a seeding company or PR company paid to push content to popular blogs and destination sites. It’s another kind of business relationship you should not ignore. If you think that your fan base can be relied on to freely distribute your trailer and your widget… just take a deep breath and ask yourself “why will they?”

Here’s a final example of a different kind. I bet I could make a home movie with Tom Cruise, advertise it on billboards and buses around London and make a profit from theatrical distribution. No audience relationships, except Tom’s popularity I guess, but no social media, no forums, no collaboration, no transmedia; just brute force, old fashioned advertising. See, the old model isn’t dead.  

The problem for the independent is the cost of hiring Tom and hiring the advertising space:  which is why audience relationships are so important for the indie.  But don’t discount the power of business relationships, the power of money and the power of key opinion formers.

Which I’m afraid also means that one future scenario missing from most indie conversations is the one in which big companies with deep pockets and entrenched relationships find a way to reinvent themselves and preserve the status quo. It happens.

We’re not entitled to the future.

It’s always a numbers game

One of the key take-aways for me from FOE4 was that fans are nice but the crowd is best. It came up several times on different panels in different guises: your idea/storyworld/product has to scale. Please don’t take this to mean that I’m saying fans are not important, absolutely not. But conversations often turn to Kevin Kelly’s 1000 true fans and it tends to imply that casual, fleeting, one-off interest is not important: it is.

The importance of understanding this can be felt when you’re asking yourself, do I make something that appeals to a hardcore audience or a general audience? You’ll always make more money and have an easier ride with the general audience. Will it be as creatively rewarding? Well, I guess that depends on your definition of hardcore vs casual. But you can appeal to both and one way is to do it is at different times: first the hardcore (they’re the most receptive) and then the broader audience. With transmedia you can do both.

And finally…

A major strength of transmedia is that you can offer different experiences to different audiences and operate different business models -  maybe at different stages in the evolution of the project. I agree with the PttP report: you should look at your movie as a process and not a product.

I’m very positive about the future and I think transmedia storytelling will unlock many untapped revenue streams, business models and opportunities for creative expression. And we will realize our greatest ambitions.

But please be mindful and think cautiously: don’t be blinded by the bright future and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I wonder if I’m alone in playing through Halo 3 to get to the cut scenes?

As I played it, I looked forward to those sit-back digital performances because they were beautifully executed and they really felt like rewards for completing the level.  My only criticism of the Halo cut scenes would be that too much of the story was told in dialogue which I often found difficult to follow. Even so, the visual artistry and score more than compensated for this shortcoming.

So how important is the cut scene?

I’m currently playing Mass Effect (I know it’s a bit old but I’ve only just got around to it!) and I have to say I find the cut scenes rather frustrating and intrusive. I am impressed by the nuanced performances and the direction so it’s not the execution – the choice of shots and editing within the scene is very nicely done and I thought this too for Gears of War 2. I’m updating my directing course for Learn Film Asia and I’m wondering how I can incorporate some of the cut scenes: it’s very interesting to discuss the director’s choice of lens and camera position/movement in a situation where there are no physical constraints. But that’s a digression….

My point about Mass Effect is that the cut scenes start to feel unwelcome. I picked up my Xbox controller to take control, not to sit back and be controlled…at least not so often. I feel terrible about saying this because I want games to have more storytelling (I’ll get onto BioShock and Fallout 3 in just a moment ) and it’s quite possible that I’ll ask Santa to bring me a PS3 so I’ll be able to play Heavy Rain (which I’m really excited about along with Alpha Protocol). But with ME it feels like information overload. There’s just so much story to take in before I’m allowed to progress and the game keeps taking away my control too frequently and for too long.

Now look at BioShock and Fallout 3… oh brother what beautiful works of art these games are. Yet the cut scenes here are few and far between. And when they’re used it’s for the drama – sometimes delivering a powerful plot twist that each time really amazes and engages me. Unlike Halo 3, they’re not rewards for completing the level, at least not in the same way, they advance the story and they can come at unexpected times: I’m suddenly flicking the buttons on the controller wondering if it’s gone dead when BAM! I’m held captive to a story advancement that’s a thrilling experience. The plot twist in the middle of BioShock I found truly jaw-dropping: first class. The storytelling, the cut scene and my active control are all in harmony and not stratified.

Friends of mine who “don’t have time for games” are missing out on what I’ve found to be a rich, rewarding experience. I’m no game designer so I won’t pretend to have any expert knowledge in this area, I’m just trying to rationalize my experience as a humble gamer. I feel as though holding the controller creates such a deep, heightened connection to the story that isn’t there with movies. It’s more than just being in control, it’s also those moments in the cut scene when the controller vibrates to underline what’s on screen.

Although the vibration is felt in my hands, I experience it in my chest.

Sidebar: In movies the closest we get to this is pumping up the bass in the mix hoping it’ll cause the cinema seat to vibrate (it’s in the Dolby Surround spec but I doubt I’ll be mixing in Dolby again anytime soon). Maybe now that portable devices are so popular, someone could develop a media player that while playing the movie it listened for a very low bass audio frequency and then activated the mobile’s vibrator?

So how would I feel if BioShock or Fallout 3 had more cut scenes? Hmmm… I don’t think they’d benefit to be honest. The cut scenes in these games are not bolt-ons or after-thoughts or supplementary fluff, they’re intrinsic to the gameplay.

But here’s another suggestion: I would love to see rendered in-character pseudo “behind the scenes” footage from the “cast”. The Liam Neeson interview on the Fallout extras is nice but what would have been really cool would have been an interview with his digital character. For example, his father character could have been interviewed by Three Dog at the radio station, LOL! It would have blended realities in a very engaging way.  I know this needn’t be part of the actual gameplay but it could have delivered story insights – for example about the shelters or the wasteland or other characters.  And it could have been optional for those like me who enjoy this stuff while those who just like killing mutants could sidestep it.

So what’s the conclusion?

Well, wait a minute… how do I feel about the cut scenes in the Tony Hawks skateboarding games? Hmm… they don’t really feel like level rewards and they don’t really tell a story… not a proper story, come on. In the THPS series the “story” is a flimsy mechanism to make the skateboarding venues feel part of something cohesive. But it does definitely work. I buy into each THPS “story” without any question but here the cut scenes tend to explain how to get through the level  - they’re informational and they’re perfunctory. But most importantly they don’t feel intrusive.

So maybe we can say the cut scene should never feel intrusive; it must feel integral. Though what this means in practice is different for each game (or depends on genre maybe?).

Perhaps the goal of the cut scene should be to go beyond integral (that’s a hygiene factor) and strive to be something that heightens the experience. I’d like to see more games like BioShock and Fallout 3 where the cut scene delivers a real punch… but to do that well the game is going to have to have a decent story.

End note: BioShock 2 – YES YES YES; BioShock feature film… oh please nooooo. I just know it’s going to suck even with the great director they have onboard. I’m sorry but Hollywood doesn’t have a good record with game-to-movie conversions.

Had I been given the chance to direct the BioShock movie (which was never going to happen), my choice would have been to make it a motion capture digital movie using the existing BioShock in-game “sets” (levels). So much of my love for that game is in the texture and the lighting: it’s so so possible to create an amazing feature that leverages the existing assets. Guys, give us fans a Creative Commons license and the machinima tools to tell our own stories in the rich environment you’ve created. The ARG looks cool but think of the publicity and awareness you'd get with hundreds of user-generated videos? And you'd be rewarded with more loyalty towards the IP such that should the movie suck you’ll have an easier ride :) I honestly believe you could make BioShock a cultural phenomenon: but you must unleash the tools!

For the record, here's a couple of links to recent stuff:

Crowdsourcing for Indies

Collaborative Transmedia Storytelling

Transmedia Notation.

At some point I'll pull this all together and post here... just...need.. to... find... more... time...

What's very interesting to me is that I've been looking at the same issues and coming up with similar conclusions. Where I believe we share a common outlook are:

• discovery is the single biggest issue facing filmmakers
• movies are going to be free for most people (as music is now) but just giving the movie away isn't going to help it get found
• to crack the discovery issue we need to go transmedia and this ultimately means we need to think of our movies as "services" rather than "products"
• our future business model lies in enhancing social experiences (but that still means someone can enjoy the experience in solitude)

Why do we need to go transmedia? Well, because the same story can reach out to many different audience segments (via the different media) and for any given segment it potentially increases the number of touch-points (meaning that the more someone sees or hears about your "movie" the more likely they are to take an interest in it).

Why does transmedia result in services rather than products? Well, because building relationships and creating experiences means an ongoing commitment to the audience and not just a final product that's put on a shelf to be sold. This is already evident with RPGs where people have invested hours of time playing and building their own internal world. And I can say from my own experience that if someone doesn't develop a Commonwealth expansion pack for Fallout 3 so I can see what's happened to Dr Li then I'm going to be very upset!

In designing the open-source Parasites transmedia project, I've taken the audience' social needs as the starting point for developing the project, as the diagram below shows.

Show me the money

Lance presents the idea of leveraging the data that surrounds your "movie" and using the information you collect about the audience to make money. There's definitely an opportunity here and it's an approach already being taken by many companies (see Free by Chris Anderson for the examples).

The problem with building a business plan on data comes if you need to sell it to a third party; because then you need the permission of your audience to capture and sell it. And of course you need someone willing to buy the data that isn't directly enjoying the experience you created. Both invite conflicts.

You could, however, effectively sell the data back to the audience in the guise of an improved experience but then the data is an enabler rather than the service that's bought.

My opinion, as built into the Parasites business model, is that there is evidence that people will pay for the following:

• utility - think benefits of physical book over digital book or download over streaming
• convenience - pay to get it in this place, right now vs I get it for free later
• personalization - pay to get a bespoke, tailored version vs the free general version
• merchandise - pay for physical products that fulfill social needs (to look cool, insider/outsider)

These are the four pillars of future business models and it need not rely on massive audiences. But it does rely on a greater understanding not only of audiences but of people.

If you're in any doubt about these ideas, ask yourself why people pay premium-prices for a cellphone ringtone that lasts a few seconds but won't buy a three minute song?

So, while still refusing to embrace consumerism, there's a big chance that the future of indie film financing is in merchandising. Maybe not a plastic toy with every Happy Meal but maybe unique, cool stuff that isn't part of a million dollar franchise empire.

Take for example the Cosmonaut store as an example of cool, unique, beautiful...well.. stuff. Rather than just asking people for money to part-fund a movie, the merchandise gives something back - not just the physical product but the kudos.

T-shirts and other clothes have always been used as a public statement about the wearer's personality or opinions. Buying a t-shirt to support an indie movie or a cause buys you kudos among friends and gives a warm feeling inside that you've done something good.

Designing Your Merch

In working with Klatcher.com on the Mindflesh store, we've tried to create t-shirts that are unique but also that have a value outside the movie. That's to say even if someone hadn't seen the movie, the t-shirt would still be cool. Well, at least in some circles :)

The point being that you're not expecting the buyer to be a walking billboard for the movie. It's enough that they bought something from you to help pay back the financing.

Mindflesh being the movie it is, our designs are not for everyone but that's just why they're cool ;)

Where else can you make a statement with your shoes?!

So What's The Problem?

The problem right now is not so much getting the merchandise made on demand - there are many sites like Zazzle - it's the cost base. Just like selling your movie on Amazon, the guy making all the money is not the movie producer who's typically only making 5% to 20% of the retail price.

With more data on what sells, when it sells, who's buying and why they buy, it'll be possible to bulk-buy merchandise and, in taking a risk that it sells, the producer will keep more of the money. Of course, it's not movie making, but if fewer people are buying movies then it's a case of having to find alternative products that they will spend their money on.

NB: Check out the official press release here and feel free to Digg it ;)

What does that mean? Well, working with the nice people at Klatcher.com we're experimenting with new ways to connect to audiences and find a sustainable business model.

This ought to beg two questions: what's Klatcher.com and what's the new business model?

Klatcher.com is a new media technology platform that integrates all the islands of content and social media that develop around a movie. It doesn't replace the need for a Facebook page and a YouTube channel but it can pull them together in a more cohesive way. And it also aims to simplify the management and tracking of content be it video, blog posts, photos etc.

As is typical these days with Internet services, the site is in continual beta but improvements are happening pretty much weekly so I'd encourage folks to give it a go a fire off suggestions to Johannes the Klatcher CEO.

So what's happening there with Mindflesh? Well the first thing you'll notice is that the feature-length movie have been chopped up into 22 webisodes. We've published six webisodes at launch and then we're publishing one every Tuesday and Friday for the next 8 weeks.

Below is webisode 3 which shows our hero first getting captured by the Guardians :)

So, the movie is completely free to watch as webisodes and although the movie wasn't designed to be webisized I think we've made a pretty good job of finding a good place to cut... if not always with a cliff hanger, at least an enticing hook.

We've also created a bunch of merchandising that includes these rather elegant, arty Keds!

When we were in post on Mindflesh, Matt the editor and I joked about all sorts of T-shirts we might do utilizing quotes from the movie. But I didn't implement any kind of merchandising because I have to be honest and say that I was rather uncomfortable whoring myself out like I was making Harry Potter or Star Wars. The bottom line unfortunately is... well, the botton line. Seems like people will buy unique and cool stuff more than they're inclined to pay for movies... but let me address this in another blog post.

Here's the two primary sources I used: A Channel 4 map of UK in 2080 and this amazing flood map tool! I raised the water level by 14 meters :)

Note that initially the gameplay will focus on urban London but expand as the online population grows. The London map needs quite a lot more work actually - need to go down to borough level and then down to buildings & rooms.

We will have more details to follow shortly but I wanted to reassure everyone that progress is being made. A lot of work is being done off-line or behind the scenes to provide the foundations that we can all build upon.

The diagram below highlights the complexity but most importantly our approach.

What we're in the process of creating is a Project Reference Guide. Those in the TV industry might think of this as the "bible" - the document that informs everyone where the story is heading across the season(s). "Bible" is a bit too religious for my liking so we're calling it by what it is - a reference source :)

To create the bible..*cough*.. reference guide, we have to first start with our premise and then work our way through describing and developing the world (a dystopian Britain 500 years from now ravaged by global warming and political corruption), the characters (various leaders, visionaries and crooks that inhabit this new world) and the plot (what drives these people and how do they conflict with each other? who is our hero?).

It would be easy to think that we could just develop a story and then implement it across multiple media and multiple platforms. But the media and platforms lend themselves to different interactions, form factors and uses. And we want to tie everything together as described in my earlier post.

The diagram below shows the relative amounts of brainpower we're spending on the different elements. The game, you see, potentially provides the most immersive experience and hence requires the most consideration and planning. The movie on the other hand only allows the audience to view through one window on to the world. It's also fair to say that a lot of what would be done for script development like character backstories etc. that would be evident in the movie if not explictly shown is being done under the "game" heading even though we know it'll be used for both.