EYESthatHEAR

Transmedia and the Evolution of Storytelling

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:10:00 +0000

A few days ago I came across a podcast by Hollywood 2.0 called The Future of Storytelling. The topic was “Transmedia.” I’d never heard that term before. Initially the word made me think of Transylvania and blood-sucking vampires. From there my mind connected thought to the awful trend of producing brain cell-killing films that numb the senses and suck life out of an audience (funny how both relate very closely). And so, naturally, my first gut feeling was not a positive one. Still, I was curious. After learning more, I can now recall seeing it around. But you don’t know what to look for until you learn there is something worth looking for.

Amanda Lin Cost, writer for PBS.org describes Transmedia as a tool for telling stories across multiple platforms. The same story will share elements of its core across outlets like movies, apps, and gaming. Different yet distinct parts of, say, a film are designed to engage fans on a more dynamic level. All points of the process purpose unique story contributions to stand on their own. An application of the methodology might include producing a video game of the story, creating Webisodes of character spin offs, or generating a comic book of unanswered questions directed by fans. Transmedia has the power to extend a film’s deep back-story and characters beyond traditional, singular exhibitions.

Innovent’s CEO, Antonio Kaplan says their operations of this practice began before the process even had a name. He says the experience for customers is like looking through a “three-sided prism.” Amanda Lin Cost describes the method as “breaking down the fourth wall,” and Henry Jenkins of Fast Company says Transmedia “allows gifted storytellers to expand their canvas and share more of their vision with their most dedicated fans.” Transmedia Marketing Café compares what marketing was, and presently is, to what marketing could become through Transmedia as the difference between, “interruption to integration, from “sponsor” to “story contributor” and from a disconnected purchase path to instant commerce.” It’s important to note that Transmedia isn’t applicable to all films and forms of entertainment, but, in many cases, its relevancy is obvious. However, as the cliché goes, it’s hard to describe the taste of salt to someone who’s never had salt before. For many, a salt-less meal is quite simply, bland. Without Transmedia, some audiences could be deprived the pleasure of a savory viewing experience. Translating a story into various forms of media has the power to fill that common dissatisfaction.

Collaborative Transmedia Storytelling

Summer Anderson is a up-and-coming graduate of Full Sail University's Entertainment Business Master's Program. Her 10 years of multimedia experience provides a foundation to examine the interrelation between all forms of media while looking through the lens, specifically, of cinema.

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 03:45:00 +0000

Recently I’ve come across some interesting developments in the industry. For one, Stacey Parks of Film Specific noted from her travels around Europe that many investors say they are having a hard time finding the ‘right’ projects to invest in. Her report further indicates that, “there’s more money than we know what to do with floating around out there looking to finance ‘Hollywood Independents.’ Quite a differing perspective from the myth that funds are scarce and thinly spread across the ever-increasing numbers of “in development” films. The problem lies not with funds availability, but in successfully securing them. The apparent problem I’ve, and many others have observed, is that filmmakers do not treat their projects as a business nor do they conduct themselves in a business-like manner. I’ve said this in previous posts: your film is a product that needs to be positioned as an object to monetize. The investors and financiers you are looking for have money, but they do not cater to panhandlers looking for a handout. I want to apologize for my bluntness, but I won’t. There is really no excuse for not finding money to “get the job done.”

Even without investors and bank lending (which is next to impossible, given the historically low or non-existent return on investment), indie filmmakers have plenty of options for generating their own funds: IndieGoGo, Kickstarter, and other Crowd Funding platforms. This is no big secret. All it takes is a seriously positioned campaign worth paying attention to. With passion and determination, this can be achieved by anyone. Even still, there are always new options in development. Let’s say you create a teaser to use as advertisement on Vimeo. Well now Vimeo has the option of using something call the Tip Jar. Here viewers can show their appreciation and support for a video by contributing tips towards whatever objective the filmmaker has. I see this as another useful tool in campaigning for feature length financing. And after the film is completed, Vimeo now, as Kyle Rupprecht of MovieMaker.com writes, “enable(s) aspiring moviemakers to earn money from the films and videos they share on Vimeo.” through another new feature called Pay-to-View. This is on Vimeo.

“Hear ye, Hear ye!

The courts are now closed to griping!”

Lessons Learned: The Creative Entrepreneur

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:29:00 +0000

IMDb: Lone Ranger (1957)

Over the past 11 or so months, I’ve been studying entertainment business through a degree program hosted by Full Sail University. Surprisingly, my business approach took a shape vastly different from what I started with. As it is with creativity, inspiration very rarely reflects in exactness. Instead, it often manifests in better form. What I’ve learned is that there is tremendous creativity involved in conceptualizing, articulating and creating a strong and solid foundation for a business. As a creative, I’ve had to seek out various types of professionals for help in wrapping my head around a foreign subject. Some were related to the entertainment industry, but many were not. Business is the same whether you’re creating a manufacturing company that produces hot and spicy widgets or planning for world domination through filmmaking. Even though it’s been a feat of great difficulty to force my right brain into compliance, I know learning “the business end of the rifle” is monumentally important to making a living making art.

In my last blog post I quoted a few professionals that have helped me better understand the relevance of learning business and how to effectively make it happen. From Jim Cones I learned the difference between a Producer’s Package and a Business Plan. The Film Method broke down the business of film into terms a creative person could understand. Michael Berger has created a phenomenal business-coaching platform around his book, The E-Myth. No matter the professional, they have all opened my eyes to how much I do not know. But that’s okay. Some of the most important keys to selling oneself and one’s business are, as Jayson Whitmore, co-owner of the design and media production company Royale says, humility and the willingness to learn. I’ve always said that once a person becomes prideful they stop learning, growing and progressing. A forward-thinking entrepreneur can’t afford stifling due to arrogance. Some may make considerable strides, but I wonder just how much more they could’ve gained or grown without succumbing to pride?

One of the most important things I’ve learned from studying business and industry leaders is, as I’ve stated above, the fact that business building can be a very creative process. Jennifer Lee wrote for Ladies Who Launch saying, “Your artistic gifts can actually help you find fresh solutions to your business challenges and enable your ventures to grow in ways you would’ve never dreamed possible.” She goes onto list “10 Tips for the Creative Entrepreneur,” encouraging ‘creatives’ not to compartmentalize their attributes but to fully embrace and apply them to every aspect of the business creation process. Tom James of Escape From Illustration Island says running a smart business will give an artist “more clarity and freedom to create your next masterpiece.” Inevitably the dependability trait uncommonly possessed by artists will blossom. Clients will gain confidence and repay in kind. Consequently, commitment to these principles has the potential to incite a variation to the world’s eighth wonder: compound interest through referrals. Repeat business produces profits, which results in achieving the goal we all have in mind: to make a living making art.

Film as a Business: The Business of Film

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 01:42:00 +0000

You’ll hear freshly hatched film students and budding filmmakers say their creation is out of love for the work. But many would, at best, like to make a living at it. Still, few view filmmaking as the monetization of a high-demand commodity. I say high-demand because of the proliferation of Video On Demand and other streaming channels. The increasing numbers alone indicate a growing desire and/or need for fresh cinema. Cinema is the number one export in the United States, and now with Federal recognition as a viable business entity, a filmmaker can and should approach the long-term track of their work with more precision and direction. But it’s less about planning the route of their commodity than the importance of managing a ‘corporate structure’ surrounding the commodity. Focusing solely on the object leads to, what Michael E. Gerber says in The E-Myth Revisited, an Entrepreneurial Seizure. He continues in saying even though a product may be phenomenal and, in the context of movies, a beautiful example of cinematic expertise, weak support structures will burrow the product into obscurity. “Indeed, the problem is not that the owners of small businesses in this country don’t work; the problem is that they’re doing the wrong work. As a result, most of their businesses end up in chaos – unmanageable, unpredictable, and unrewarding.” Louise Levison, author of Filmmaker’s & Financing: Business Plans for Independents says, “many filmmakers lose interest when they realize that writing a business plan takes work. The impulse is to think, ‘I have a good script, just give me the money.’” But doesn’t work like that anymore.

In film production, the business plan is an extension and articulation of the producer’s package, while the producer’s package itself is primarily used to seek for distribution and industry support. Many experts believe creating business plans around a film attracts not only serious investors, but also, as John Cones writes, may useful in “identifying founding shareholders for the initial corporation.” A successfully positioned film will lead to greater monetization, thus creating momentum towards the making of another film. Isn’t this the goal independent filmmakers have in mind? Then forward-thinking ambition is required.

Business owners turned investors will view incorporated films with business plans as focused and professional. Investors will appreciate the respect this extends, and will respect the forethought of a filmmaker as well. “Your business plan is your first impression,” says Cindy Freeman of the Film Method. “Make sure it reflects you, your project, your passion and your professionalism.” It’s a paradigm shift for filmmakers, I know. But if you think about it, incorporating a film as an LCC (or other) makes sense for many reasons. The film becomes an entity entitled to legal protection; crew positioned as employees or individual contractors will increase validity; and doing so will help a film acquire clout and reputation beneficial to the marketing of the film. The moviemaking climate in the industry has progressed in ways very different from the past. Independent filmmakers are more empowered with control over their work, and therefore their future. For indie filmmakers, the industry is ripe for harvesting. Make sure the seeds of your “small business film” are planted well.

Scott DuPont: How to Create a Business Plan for Filmmaking

Specific business plan resources for filmmakers:

John W. Cones: How Filmmakers Can Avoid the Business Plan Scam

Louise Levison: Business Strategies blog

Jason Brubaker: Filmmaking As Your Small Business

Needle In a Haystack

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:22:00 +0000

Smaller than a Big Mac

Right now I’m sitting in my living room with my friend as she clicks through the channels of my Roku 2 XS. It’s a wireless unit the size of a small box of Whitman’s chocolate, and I think it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Ten minutes after opening the box I had access to an almost cable repertoire of Internet content – on my TV. The biggest selling point for me was the impressive amount of access to independent films and online video content (i.e. Hulu, Netflix, SnagFilms AND Vimeo!). But how did those channels even acquire said content? Digital distribution.

Still, even if a filmmaker has their work available through these channels, it doesn’t mean instant audience gain. Awareness has to be built; campaigns have to run; and viewer relationships have to be fostered if filmmakers want to attract an audience, and therefore, a profit. One may argue that since it’s hard enough to land a theatrical release, campaigning for Internet viewership must be harder – especially with the sheer amount of content on the Net. On the contrary, as Dustin Woodward, ‘WebConnoisure’ blogger and freelance SEO professional says, “People that are passionate about your film’s topic are out there and want to find you. And it is a level playing field—Hollywood studios have trouble ranking #1 for their own film titles!” With the Web and the power of social media, filmmakers without deep pockets can quickly spread the word about and exhibit their work before it even sees a theater. And, should a filmmaker get the privilege of showing their film in a theater, a solid support system may have already been built under their work. Which comes first, the horse or the cart? I opine that, for the film industry, the Web is now the horse and the theater is the cart – not the other way around.

Ben Hur, 1959

As far as churning your film through the glut of content like cream to the top of milk, this is where SEO, or search engine optimization comes in. But it’s not just about the film’s brand. Brand building also centers on the filmmaker him or her self. Sheri Candler, marketing expert and publicist for independent filmmakers, specifically, says SEO is key to building a personal brand. “Your Personal Brand. Your online reputation. It’s the same thing.” Know your professional name and how that translates, or doesn’t translate, across the web. Consistency builds relevance, and relevance builds trust. The filmmaker is the representation of the work. As a unique representative, are you ranking positively with search engines? Sheri continues, “Filmmakers interested in building a personal brand on the web do not have the luxury of anonymity.” SEO and brand building is not simply a nicety. For filmmakers, they are essential.

However, the seriousness of SEO should not overshadow content. Buzz will fall flat without any substance behind it. If you have a choice between spending time on your blog and producing creative works, produce creative works. Nobody wants to be considered a poseur. Talk is cheap, and it’s bad for business. Even still, try to find a balance. From my end of the Roku, I won’t get the pleasure of seeing your works if my channels can’t find them. Get your stuff found. I’m sure I’m missing out.

** For kicks and giggles, watch this Shakespearian work on SEO. As serious as having a robust web presence is, it’s always good to keep it real:

A Watched Pot Never Boils

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:44:00 +0000

No doubt every filmmaker wants their film projected to the big screen in front of a large audience. We dream about it every time we sit watching someone else’s film, thinking, “Surely if they could do it, then so could I.” That is 100% true. You can and should. Your film deserves it. Every film does. The big screen is where it’s meant to be. But it may not happen in your time frame or in your way. It may take years for your film to reach even one theater, and often at a financial loss rather than gain. The ‘screen’ may not even be the screen you envisioned. The odds for a marketed film in the U.S. to generate financial gain is roughly 3%. “Wow. Thanks for being such a Debbie Downer,” you may say. “Why don’t we tuck our tails between our legs and call it a day.” But let’s get real: The San Diego Padres have roughly a 0.0% chance of making it to the playoffs, and the Colorado Rockies are close behind. Odds say they should hang up their cleats and shut the team down. The Padres haven’t entered the World Series since 1984. Then again, the Padres went to the World Series in 1984. So did the Rockies in 2007. Who’s to say they won’t again? But besides that, what keeps a ball player playing when the odds seem stacked against them and the years between keep stacking up? The love of the game. And even if they never made it to the World Series again, the teams keep playing games because, for one, their fans keep paying.

So how does baseball have anything to do with filmmaking? Nothing. And everything.

"A League of Their Own"

We live in a magnificent time of opportunity and versatility with regards to exhibition and distribution. Your film’s ‘premiere’ doesn’t have to wait for funding or the opportunity to theatrically release. Instead, outlets like IndieFlix, Distribber, and Distrify provide platforms for streaming play and instant download, equating sometimes to instant revenue. Aggregators such as these branch out to major players like Hulu, iTunes, Amazon VOD and other streaming services, delivering your content to a wide spread audience. You could approach the outlets individually, of course, but that's your preference - your prerogative. This isn’t a new revelation, but a reminder that the resources exist to, quite frankly, eliminate excuses. Men all over the country, including Major League ball players, were called away during WWII. Did that mean baseball stopped? No. The league worked with what they had to “get done what they had to get doing.” It was about the game - not about the player. Here, it’s about the film – not the venue. Some day you’ll have your theatrical release. It’ll be amazing. Your twenty-dollar tub of popcorn will have never tasted so… buttery. But in the meantime, “get to doing what you gotta get done:” show your film. Because, “There’s no crying in baseball.” (Columbia, 1992)

Beauty in the Breakdown (An Editorial)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:58:00 +0000

Iraq, 2007

An intensely personal and poignant experience occurred in my life roughly 5 years ago. While serving in Iraq as a Combat Cameraman, I received a “combat wound” in the form of PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It directly affected my passion for the art of moviemaking and placed a huge roadblock in the path thereof.

I bring this up because recently I was interviewed by the “Make the Connection” public awareness campaign, a representative of the Veteran’s Affairs, about my experience with PTSD. The interview involved chronicling my service in the Navy and why I took the path I did. I joined the Navy to learn mechanical and technical skills associated with image capturing, while at the same time giving to something bigger than myself: my country. Ironically, my central contribution was the very thing damaged the most: my passion for the moving image. The trauma etched so deeply onto my soul, I could barely edit anything without experiencing immense stress or anxiety. When I left the Navy the skills and passion I had did not come with me. They were left on the cutting room floor of combat, so to speak. At the time, it felt as if the “casualty of war” was my dream. Tear that away from anybody and you tear out the life that is in him or her. I was paralyzed. The professional foundation I gained became my biggest threat as opposed to a launching point for my career.

As we talked I was reminded that certain things would never be the same. But thankfully through treatment by way of the VA, I’ve come back to a place of passion and courage enough to give it a go again. Things are universally much better, but not all. The memories, echoes of caustic nausea still remain. Still, the new skills and strength I’ve gained through unique treatment have opened doors both literally and figuratively – necessary components for me to carry on. It was my honor to tell my story if it helps even one veteran know they are not alone and can receive help. But the experience was also therapeutic for me. Not only did it remind me of the pain, but it also reminded me of victory – and the victories I still have a duty to fulfill. No matter how much extra effort it takes now for me to act, storytelling will only remain a ‘casualty’ if I leave it there. And then the ‘enemy’ wins: the enemies of terror and fear, both physically and psychologically. But I am not a victim of circumstances. In spite of the subconscious apprehension I have, my service to my family, friends and community are not over. We serve by contributing our time and talents in our own unique ways. My unique way is through storytelling.

Many thanks to the VA and “Make the Connection” for their help and support. Otherwise, even this blog role would not be possible. Keep dreaming and Press On.

Whose Permission Is It, Anyway?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 03:01:00 +0000

It appears that everyone who has a camera can be or thinks he or she is a filmmaker. The resources are such that make this realistically feasible for the financially deprived. As digital distribution options grow plentifully on a global scale, getting your movie out and bringing money in becomes less of a pipe dream and more of a possible reality. Micro-budgets and crowdfunding avenues make upfront costs shrink to a fraction of what it takes to make a Hollywood-level film, and the evolution of acceptable formats satisfy consumer pallets sometimes in 4 minutes or less (i.e. ‘webisodes’). The rules have changed and the processes have simplified. Truly, anyone who has even a cellphone camera can make the next Blair Witch Project or Clerks 4.0 – the reboot. Still, as options increase so do legal complications. New ‘Acts,’ policies and laws regularly crop up to ‘protect’ artists while conversely deterring them from producing. What often deters artists from making a living with their craft is the multitude of legal hurdles to hike under and over. I may be speaking blasphemy to the independent, rogue creative, but thank goodness for lawyers. Without them, our ignorance may make the difference, as Ana-Klara H. Anderson of the law firm of Thomas & LoCicero PL says, between bank or bust for an artist’s labor of love. Without legal protection front-loading, she says, “You invest a lot of time, money and creativity only to be stopped in your tracks. All that hard work would be for nothing. It could bankrupt the work.”

So what types of IP protection should a filmmaker consider before a film captures first light? According to Dr. Anderson, the producer should own every piece of intellectual property associated with their project. This includes the copyright to the creation itself as well as the right to use the idea, concept or work for post-production purposes (i.e. distribution and exhibition). It is similar in the music business to the difference between an artist’s musical work and the sound recording of that work itself. Permissions are required for both. Other assets that need protection are sound, script, music and the right to use the title. Yes: the title. The film’s title becomes its trademark, captured in a catch phrase as its identifier. Also, if a filmmaker desires to place specific products within the film for funding, permission needs to be secured before – not after the fact. These points seem obvious, but they wouldn’t need articulation if filmmakers practiced them. Obviously.

Smokey Says...

One of Dr. Anderson’s points stood out poignantly in its obviousness: Filmmakers contract with actors to employ their ‘product.’ An actor’s performance secured in a tangible medium, i.e. film, is a copyrighted product. As such, permissions required are dependent on variables, variables Dorothy Fadiman, a social change documentarian considers based on the situation. In an interview with Tony Levelle of MicroFilmmaker Magazine, Dorothy says there are two releases she acquires for each shoot. “’The first is a “model release” or “signed permission form” from each [talent].” She says the two are important for both the film itself and for publicity afterwards. All permissions, Fadiman says, are designed not only to protect the artist but also the filmmaker. Dr. Anderson concurred. She stressed the importance of “memorializing things in writing.” Word as bond holds no water in court and, from history, intellectual property disputes are diverse in their frequency. This is why seeking legal council for permission review and advisement is an essential investment. Tony Leville echoes this in his MicroFilmmaker article by saying, “the money and time you spent finding and talking to an entertainment lawyer could very well turn out to be the best money you spent on the entire production.” I’m a fan, Tony. I’m a fan. Glossing over the legalities associated with filmmaking, out of complacency, is a dangerous tightrope to dance on.

My interview with Dr. Anderson was both informative and reassuring. Reassuring in the sense that all the textbook warnings and formal education I’ve received are true. We, as artists, pour our heart and soul into our craft. It takes tremendous self-investment to turn a vision into reality. It may be true that all capable thought and effort is spent on its creation, but that is no excuse for disregarding legal formalities and laws. The hassle is no hassle if viewed as a shield and protection for both you and the work itself. In the immortal words of Smokey the Bear, “Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires!” Boy I hope using that tagline passes the “fair use” test. I might need to consult my lawyer on that one.

Ana-Klara H. Anderson, Ph.D, Esq.

In 2009, Ana-Klara earned her law degree from the University of Florida Levin College of Law and her Ph.D. in Media Law and Policy from UF's College of Journalism and Communications. Ana-Klara has authored numerous articles for media law publications and has been a frequent guest lecturer throughout the southeast on First Amendment and media law issues. In her commercial litigation practice, Ana-Klara litigates commercial disputes for corporate clients, including contract disputes, class action defense, business torts and related areas. She also prepares and reviews contracts and other documents related to business operations and management, with a particular emphasis on the arts, entertainment, and publishing industries.

Areas of Practice:

Media/First Amendment Law

Contests & Sweepstakes

Corporate Litigation

Arts & Entertainment Law

How NOT to Make Friends

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:34:00 +0000

Infamous Fish-Hook Move

I’m not going to pretend I fully support Internet regulation and governmental piracy controls. But I’m also not 100% certain that streaming sites adequately protect the artists they broadcast. For me, there are a lot of unclear and undefined demarcations. On one hand I can’t police the entire web on my own, and I would appreciate someone uncovering misuse on my behalf. At the same time, if you give a thief an inch, he’ll take you for a mile. This applies to both ends of the argument: ignoring copyright infringement on the basis of 1^st Amendment rights, or allowing power to rest in uncertain hands of legislation. Should the power to regulate and police be with the streamers? I believe so. But then we have cases like the YouTube vs. Viacom one of 2010. This was one of those, “He Says, She Says” cases where both try to “fish-hook” the other side out of the way. An embarrassing amount of evidence surfaced, proving gross levels of arrogance and the conflagrant abuse of power – on both sides. Viacom said YouTube had the responsibility to prevent copyrighted material from appearing on their site, but turned a blind eye for fear of losing site traffic. But Viacom stacked up as no saint, either. A head executive was quoted directing viral videos be made to look like fan rip-offs - then uploaded to YouTube from a non-business affiliated location. We want to trust big companies with big resources to keep the fighting clean. We want to think that we don’t need Big Brother chiming in. But here we are witnessing a failure of the private sector to keep things honest, or the outright creation of big-box pirating sites like “Megauploads.” Positioned as a file-storage and sharing site, MU says their piracy-policing tools show they are trying to do things right. But the U.S. government says their “safe harbor” resources are just a cover. They claim instead that Megauploads is one of the largest piracy hubs on the net. Similar to Viacom and YouTube, lead executives left soft-copy trails throughout their email exchanges suggesting awareness and support of illegal practices. Even if the case fails to gain traction, it is still another example of media powers disregarding copyright laws. But such pride doesn’t exist solely on a bigger corporate scale. New schemes and pirating practices are maturing like mold on bread every day. In March of this year, a twenty-something from Southern California admitted to illegally collecting copyrighted movies to share on the net. IMAGiNE Group, the company he worked for, was purposed to circumvent pirates by streaming movies online as they hit the theater. Ironically their employee Sean Lovelady, along with other co-conspirators, illegally captured audio from film premieres to enjoin with stolen video of the film available online. In short, IMAGiNE employed pirates. Their pirated content was uploaded to servers owned by IMAGiNE. Employees of IMAGiNE shared the copyrighted information with each other. Did IMAGiNE know? The case doesn’t say. Even if they weren’t, did they set in place preventative measures against system manipulation? The question could be posed to YouTube, Viacom and Megauploads, all the same. So who will be their fact checker?

Enter from left stage: SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, on the heels of PIPA, the Protect IP Act. The DMCA, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, already shuts down pirated content in singularity, but the SOPA and PIPA are designed to attack sites as a whole. According to the Justice Department, it isn’t enough to simply delete offending content but the sites that host the stolen content. Sounds reasonable enough – like shutting down crack houses for making and selling drugs. Of course pirated media are not life-threatening substances, but a law is a law: creations are under copyright protection the moment they are created. If someone breaks that law, they are accountable for the consequences. Silicon Valley argues it will stifle innovation and deter start-ups from “starting up” for fear of costly legal fees in the event of ‘accidental’ copyright violation. But do doctors picket against expensive liability insurance? Do construction companies storm Washington for being required to have Worker’s Compensation? No. They don’t because accidents happen. Without those types of insurance, they could lose their business. In the long run, it protects them. If you want to run a business then treat your company like one. There are costs associated, and if budding Internet companies want to operate, then they will have to put in fail-safes to keep it running. Copyright cases surface all the time, and injunctions are ordered at the expense of the offending party – whether unwitting or not. If you don’t want to go to court, perform due diligence in keeping you site clean.

Spotify says NO to SOPA/PIPA

But let me step off my soapbox and examine the other side of the argument – the one I’ve previously stated: Crooks abuse power. In theory, involvement by the Justice Department would help artists protect their source of income. But do we have a clean record with regards to corruption and greed? No. Referring back to the “crack house” example, how many times do we hear of cops who have fallen from grace, taking spoils for themselves? Respect for governing power has not had a good track record in our country. I want to slap the hands of pirating enablers just as much as any other artist, but I also don’t want another Pandora box of regulations and policies opened – one that, based on historical facts, will likely be manipulated for gain. So here I am – we are, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The cases above prove piracy is no small peanuts. But should we trust a government agency to take stewardship over it? Which is the lesser of two evils: ‘trust’ companies to police their own hosted content, or give Big Brother a pass to suffocate free flow of information like Russia, China or Iran? Tricky indeed.

The Puritanical Debate: Film versus Digital

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 20 May 2012 04:32:00 +0000

Since its inception, digital image capturing has faced serious resistance from film professionals - both in still and motion. The argument being film tangibly preserves an image while digital is a simple rearrangement of ones and zeros. Yet digital is heralded as the next evolution of the art form. My point of view is that shooting films on film is the highest form of the art because it requires a higher degree of professional expertise. But when a top director, Martin Scorsese, not only shoots digitally but also in three-dimension (something many pass off as gimmicky), it makes me think twice. Part of me wants to scream, “Sell Out!” While the other part, the side that reveres Scorsese, gives him a pass. There must be something to it if Scorsese, director of the gritty film Raging Bull, takes a leap towards it.

gizmodo.com

Even so I still prefer film to digital. Never mind that I own three digital cameras (DLSR, HDV and iPhone 4s). Don’t judge me. I have what I have because of production and post-production costs. In managing a motion media product, I am constrained to my budget – or the lack thereof. Had I the choice –and the means - I would choose film. Is it more complicated? Yes. Is it more costly and time consuming? Yes. But I’m a purist in my opinion that images captured on film are real. Images captured on digital are not. You catch a crappy image on film – it is what it is. Honesty. You catch a crappy shot on digital? Just hit delete and no one will know. Janusz Kaminksi, one of Steven Spielberg’s regular cinematographers interviewed with the LA Times, saying that digital makes for a lazy photographer. I concur – from experience. “When I was your age….” (and I’m only 30, mind you), I learned to shoot photography with a film camera. My training took me from black and white, to color and then to slide film, working each in the darkroom and on the light table for hours. The smell… the feel…. The frustration of seeing my mistakes slowly reveal themselves under the chemicals… It was a process to process. But that time spent made me a better photographer by motivating me to ensure I wouldn’t make the same mistake again. Importantly, if not more in this context, is the fact that film capturing was a very organic experience. You could literally capture a piece of life, recording it into the emulsion of the film. Photography and filmmaking are much different now.

photo.net

Instead of perfecting exposure and camera control, shooters “Chimp.” ‘Chimping’ is when a photographer shoots a shot, look at the LCD screen or monitor, shoot the shot, look at the screen… adjust settings (or just leave it on auto)… shoot. Look at screen…. Etc. It’s why Kaminski laments digital as “the death of the cinematographer,” and creates a co-dependent relationship between the photographer and the review button. Kaminski continues, “If you see the image on the digital screen I think people become lazy, they get satisfied with just seeing the image, they’re not going for visual panache, not getting the story through metaphors… With film there is still mystery.” Gone is the confidence that comes with knowing what, why and how a shot is captured. I won’t lie and say it hasn’t happened to me. My discipline died when I drank the ‘chimping’ punch. A ‘sin’ I will never forgive myself of.

But you can’t ignore the fact that digital is here to stay, and professionals like Scorsese and Cameron are on board. It would not be prudent to push against a bullish trend, but maybe converge the two artfully. Newer digital cameras are capturing on 4K sensors and projecting “as-is” onto the screen. Examining the process of traditional 35mm filmmaking and distribution, multiple duplications and projections actually downgrade the film to 1K by the time it reaches the screen. Audiences have never really “seen” a 4K film in the theater. Even so, there is still something organic about seeing a movie made from film. But according to Filmmaker Magazine (Spring 2012 Issue), there is a new generation of filmmakers who hate the texture of film grain. They are annoyed by small imperfections or the act of looking into a separate world rather than participating in it. I don’t see that as a bad thing. We often watch a movie to escape… to see and feel something not akin to real life. Digital… just makes it too real. Maybe it’s the way we “old-timers” (again… I’m 30 years old) grew up. The story of film-making may soon be relegated to rocking chair conversations being reminisced from the front porch.

Pro8mm.com

Fortunately there are companies still trying to preserve the art of ‘real’ filmmaking, while at the same time marrying film and digital for more efficient post-production workflows. Pro8mm out of Burbank, California is a full-service procurement, rental and processing house for 8mm and 16mm film. They stock a self-invented Super 8 negative film (16X9) along with Super 8 and Super 16 cameras re-engineered for practical use. Pro8mm creates digital masters of the film while preserving the look and feel of its original capture. No I do not work for Pro8mm and no I do not get a cut for ‘selling’ them. More or less, I am selling the idea that film is not dead. But Super 8? Whoa. Who talks about Super 8 anymore? Apparently J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg do. It may take a bit more effort to proselytize its enduring viability, but making films with film is still a valid and valuable medium to work with – a resource professionals persist in using when managing the product of their film.

Links:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/19/entertainment/la-ca-oscars-cinematography-20120219

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2012/04/good-things-in-smaller-packages-large-sensor-motion-picture-cameras-a-year-later/http://www.pro8mm.com/our-mission.php

Filmmaking as a Contact Sport

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 07 May 2012 03:50:00 +0000

Website for this image

When I think of contact sports, I think of activities like football, boxing… and sumo wrestling. But how do I equate contact sports with filmmaking? They are synonymous on various levels. Throughout my life I’ve analyzed and intellectualized why one movie reaches me but another does not. How does a film “reach out and touch someone?” On three levels: the mind; the heart; and the wallet. This applies to both the audience and the filmmaker, but for this discussion I’ll focus on the latter.

The mind:

Someone once said that filmmaking is the only blue-collar art form. When we think of art, one may think of passionate flashes of inspiration out of the nothingness and struggle of life. That may be true for the initial idea of a story materialized into a film, but the work that goes into its production takes persistent thought coupled with manual labor. It is multi-faceted, laborious and dynamic. To make the film work, a filmmaker has to think on specific, yet complex concepts simultaneously. Because of its complexity, a film takes many hands to keep the machine moving. Yet each requires timely thinking and attention detail. What’s interesting is that even the smallest, seemingly lazy thought manifests itself, even by association, in the film. Something to chew on: if the craft service sucks (i.e. stale bagels and cream cheese that are not complementary… like blueberry and chive spread), then actors and crew are not properly fed, resulting in lethargy and/or grumpiness, which then affects performance and proper tracking of details – like follow focus. It takes a great deal of present thought to make a film.

The heart:

Filmmaking requires long hours of contribution. Sometimes those hours are not equally spaced in a healthy way. Sometimes things don’t go as planned. Sometimes the crews you have to work with are difficult. Whatever the challenge, a heart for the art and a belief in the project are what carries filmmakers through to completion.

The wallet:

Filmmaking is an expensive hobby and/or marginally profitable career, at best. It’s expensive. Plain and simple. (See above for motivation)

But never mind what it takes to contribute. The outcropping from successful completion reaps rewards regardless of what profit it generates. I turn my attention back to contact sporting. Training for any sport is hard an often painful. The muscles stretch, the mind fatigues and the heart tests. What keeps an athlete going? A number of factors: satisfaction of completion; the winning catch; or knocking the thoughts out of someone’s brains. Whatever the reason, there is a reason. And whether the athlete wins or not, they still come out on top. Why? Because their mind and heart have been expanded. I submit that the same occurs in filmmaking. You are challenged and tested beyond the ability you had at the outset. You overcome fears and doubt. You test your resolve. You learn about yourself, others and about humanity by examining the human condition. We are not on this earth merely to exist or to be acted upon – but to act; to grow; and to multiply what portion we have received. Filmmaking touches a person. For better or for worse, it touches them – leaving its mark. To me, that’s worth every penny spent.

So I venture to say the responsibility lies with the filmmaker in choosing what film to make, because it will inevitably affect the person they are and become. You may not agree nor see value in this argument, but I have an intimate relationship with how affective the moving image can be on a person. For a few years I was a combat photographer and videographer. I spent six months documenting infantry life and operations in Iraq. It was hard work living, breathing and acting as if I was one of them. But I did what I had to do to get my shot. I did what was necessary to tell the story. As a result, shooting that footage made a profound impact on me – for good and for bad. I am forever changed because of that experience. And for that I am grateful, because my abilities, heart and resolve wouldn’t have uniquely grown without it.

Making pictures move is definitely a contact sport.

"It's Not About You"

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:27:00 +0000

Negotiations occur every day. Sometimes we negotiate with ourselves over simple tasks like going the gym in the morning, in the evening or not at all. Cost-benefit analysis of each decision is usually based on preset goals and commitments. When two parties negotiate, they ideally work towards mutual gain within a proposed project. Knowing yourself and knowing your project from the outset sets the tone by determining direction and focus. When interviewed, Jenna Edwards, Producer of the film, “April Showers,” and Producing Advisor for The Film Method podcast, spoke about the importance of also knowing with whom you are negotiating. “Know your investor. What do they want out of this project? Are they the right fit for the project? Look at it from their point of view. What is their ultimate goal?” Still, clearly defining what the project is and where it is going takes precedence. But if either party does not understand or see the project’s vision, an end decision cannot be effectively met.

5th Element scene: Negotiation

Film productions often involve heightened emotions. Many of the projects are personal in nature, and new filmmakers have a strong desire to land their “big break.” But these elements have a tendency to cloud deal-making discussions. You may have a well-known industry talent sitting in front of you, but if they aren’t the right fit for the project, it’s better to walk away than succumb to the emotions of the moment. Instead, focus should rest on the interests of the project rather than the positions of parties involved. Jenna advises filmmakers to follow their gut. “It’s not worth it if the deal doesn’t benefit the project. You want to build on integrity first. Trust your instinct.” Roger Fisher writes in Beyond Reason, “The difference between having a core concern ignored or met can be as important as having your nose underwater or above it.” Building the wrong team on the wrong terms not only creates future hassles, but also increases the likelihood for conflict down the road. Each party comes to the table with individual roles, goals and expectations, which should be respected with equality and autonomy, but deciding what is best for the project is paramount. It can make the difference between the success and the failure of a film.

Film Tax Incentives: Roll the Credits!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 03:26:00 +0000

State tax incentives and credits are a hot topic on the minds of all filmmakers these days. A war wages between two perspectives: entitlement and excess, with each side arguing their views on incongruent grounds. One side argues the tax credit is a waste of resources, calling for the elimination of film incentives all together. The other side says without state incentives, film production would move out of state or out of the country – taking jobs with them. Films take flight elsewhere for two reasons: artistic and economic. Nobody can help the artistic factor of flight. But if the states were to eliminate film incentives all together, the production would go to where the benefits are: other countries. There is definitely an unhealthy “race to the bottom” between states vying for the filmmakers’ attention. But because tax incentives are prevalent throughout the world, it would behoove the United States to create programs that encourage homegrown films. After all, according to Select USA, the U.S. leads the world in film and music recording revenue.

However, there are some sustainable truths to the arguments against film tax incentives. Mark Robyn, Staff Economist for the Tax Foundation wrote that, in some states, a film tax credit is an excess expense. “Though there are embarrassingly few of them, the studies that use more realistic assumptions and take into account more economic effects have always showed that states lose money on film tax credits. “ One of the main arguments for incentives is that they draw production business to states that would otherwise never see a film crew. Robyn argues that whether there is a credit or not, films will still be made - especially in places like California. Therefore, California should not be spending state funds on film incentives – especially in the economic position the state is in. Another argument states that film productions should receive credits based on their being an economic multiplier. This is a one-sided argument, seeing how economic stimulation from new business is not unique to the film industry. So why shouldn’t new companies, based on this comparison, receive similar credit?

I argue that they do. From the Small Business Development Center’s website:

“America’s entrepreneurs and small business owners continue to grow their businesses and create jobs due to unprecedented tax cuts that have been signed into law over the past two years. This includes billions of dollars in tax relief from laws such as the Recovery Act, the Small Business Jobs Act, the HIRE Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the Tax Relief and Job Creation Act.

Zero Capital Gains Taxes on Key Investments in Small Businesses

• Capital gains taxes have been fully eliminated on certain small business stock – providing an incentive for key investments in small businesses.

The Recovery Act excluded 75 percent of capital gains from the sale of certain small business investments held more than five years. The Small Business Jobs Act went one step further – excluding all capital gains from these investments in 2010 after the passage of the Small Business Jobs Act from taxes.” (SBDC.gov)

http://www.enloop.com/blog/small_business_spotlight_davidson_films

The site page continues in listing nine other tax break or credit benefits as part of its “Fact Sheet: Tax Breaks for Small Businesses.” So what’s the correlation? Filmmaking is a business. Each new film is, in essence, a brand new start-up small business, with the producer acting as lead entrepreneur. Both take risk, and both suffer from a high rate of failure. According to statistics, 96% of small business start-ups fail within the first year. Only half of the left over 4% survive more than four years. Alexander Malyshev, Former editor of Media Law & Policy wrote, “Put simply, most films lose money, but nevertheless hundreds of films are produced each year – almost in defiance of the laws of supply and demand.” He’s referring to the roughly 600 films of which only a handful generates big-ticket success. A little over 500,000 small businesses are registered every year. 96% of that is… 480,000, leaving a ‘handful’ still in existence. Wisconsin Commerce Deputy Secretary Aaron Oliver says the number of jobs generated by film production is finite. “[It is the] ‘least effective’ economic tool… if we had to choose, we could get one full-time job on a film for one year or we could get twenty factory jobs that might last for 20 years.” Our present economic reality says different. To argue that the opportunity cost for government spending on film tax credits is a non-productive use can be applied just the same to small business ventures, given the rate of failure. When 96% of start-ups fail after the first year, why shouldn’t the same employees of those failed businesses join up with a film crew that comes into town? Their ‘job security’ will be about the same.

Still… there are more accountability measures that keep small businesses responsible than there are for film productions. I agree with Robyn in that the budgetary treatments of film incentives should be more transparent. However, I do not agree with Robyn that film credits should be lumped into education and public health spending categories. Instead, registrations and answerability measures should be emplaced if filmmakers are to seek tax breaks. I think a major factor in film revenue failures is that filmmakers do not treat the production as a business. They do not value it enough as a product by which money is made. A major factor of success in business includes not only money and crew, but also education, experience and a reason – or purpose. Filmmakers would do well to learn something about business and how to plan for long term revenue goals in addition to cinematography, casting and craft service. But how do you measure the intangible, or as OCU’s economist Kyle Dean says, “an inexact science?” Implement tax liabilities and assign risk premiums based on track records of producers and production companies. Then maybe filmmakers will think twice about pouring state money into a love-child film.

There is nothing wrong with taking risk when creating art, just like there is nothing wrong with giving your best shot at starting your own business. It’s the American Dream. But there is something wrong with misusing taxpayers’ dollars. That I can agree on. It doesn’t help anybody to fuel the growing assumption that all film producers are solely interested in chasing the biggest and most lucrative tax incentive. It also doesn’t help to argue predominantly on the ‘glamour’ factor that films bring to varying states. In my opinion, that comes from a weak and condescending attitude. Argue instead that you, as a filmmaker, are an entrepreneur. Therein lies the entitlement to state and government support – just like a small business. The clout and respect will come – only if you treat it like a business.

Crowdfund in 30 Seconds: The New Wave “Elevator Pitch”

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 03:58:00 +0000

Over the past 5+ years, ambitioning creatives and entrepreneurs have sought funding through a historically different platform. In 2008, Time Magazine titled the method ‘crowdfunding.’ Being that it’s not a new development, floods of campaigners have cast their nets widely and indiscriminately. Unfortunately this creates glut, distracting backers from finding serious projects worthy of contribution. So how does one grab attention quickly and effectively? It happens in the first 30 seconds. Kissmetrics presents an infographic detailing the importance of a well-crafted video. The first 30 seconds of any video set the tone and answer the question, “Why should I keep watching this? Why should I care?” I bring up video in conjunction with crowdsourcing because you cannot reach your full potential without it. Plain and Simple. A video is essential to your crowdfunding success. It’s kind of like online dating. The ones who haven’t posted a picture are quickly, if not instantly through search criteria, filtered out. It’s not important how I know this, only that I do. Let’s just say that I’ve done my research.

‘Net surfers lack the patience for long, drawn out introductions and pitch feeds. If a campaign doesn’t grab within the first 30 seconds, the audience will move on. This doesn’t mean a campaign isn’t any good, but that the package lacked attractive wrapping and alluring accouterments - not to be mistaken with frippery or ostentatious adornment. But the invitation for contribution must be palatable and savory, at best. It’s the first thing backers see. You only have one chance to make a first impression, and so it better be solid – it better be good. Here are some “goodness” rules of thumb:

1. Pick the Right Platform.

Some of the crowdfunding sites out there are: Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, Kiva, Peerbackers, ChipIn, Sellaband, and Pledgemusic, to name a few. Each has its own unique niche. For example, Kickstarter leads the pack with over $100 million in contributions towards filmmaking alone. Peerbackers was created to help business owners garner funds for startup or expansion costs, and Kiva works intercontinentally with microloans to “help people create better lives for themselves and their families.” In theory, all three could be tapped for, say, a documentary on the effects of Kiva, empowered by a newly created small business venture. But Nicole Fende on a podcast called, “SmallBizFinance,” suggests narrowly focusing your campaign and driving it forward through strong marketing strategies. It’s important to research which option will be the right fit for right now. Start with one platform and diversify later, if need be.

2. Research Other Campaigns (competition).

There are 42 pages of campaigns on Peerbackers; 5 categories of film and video on Kickstarter; and Sellaband has helped over 80 artists or groups through more than $4 million from investors. Crowdfunding is a big deal – and a successful one at that. Know what you are up against. Listen, watch and research what already exists or has achieved success. The only way to stand out is to know where you stand – and what stands next to you.

3. Script. Plan. Practice. Polish.

The newness of the platform does not negate the need for quality and detail. Developing your presentation is no different than preparing a pitch. Gordon Firemark of Entertainment Law Update reiterates the importance of preparation and due-diligence, saying:

“I am often consulted by film and stage producers who tell me they are ready to start work on raising the financing for their films/ plays/ musicals, or what-have-you, but often as not, as we get to work, it becomes clear that they’re not as ready as they think.” (Firemark, 2012)

Package yourself for success. Assuming you take yourself and your project serious, treat the preparation of your campaign the same. Remember: first impressions will never happen again. Get it right the first time.

Additional Links of Interest:

Sen. Brown Law Proposal:

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/11/scott-brown-next-steve-jobs/2/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

Craig Newman: Crowdfunding fraud??

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/12/crowdfunding-big-thing-fraud/

Nat.l Endowment for the Arts:

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/the-nea-responds-to-kickstarter-funding-debate.php

Film Crowdfunding Success:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/Cobweb/archives/2012/03/01/crowdfunding-responsible-for-31-films-at-austin-festival

Entrepreneur Magazine “How To”:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/222813

Five Successful Crowdfunding Campaigns:

http://exclaim.ca/Features/Spark/five_successful_crowdfunding_campaigns

Small Business Trends:

http://smallbiztrends.com/2011/04/small-business-financing-sec-eases-crowdfunding-regulations.html

Ode to the Athenian Philosophers

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:57:00 +0000

Dear TEDtalks. Oh how I wish I could say you are both enlightening and inspiring to me, but I cannot. There is nothing ground breaking or revolutionary about your initiative (i.e. the term “accelerated innovation”), as all I could think about when watching your videos were the competitions hosted by Socrates and Plato during the reign of the Roman Empire. The only difference is the forum for exhibition is a digital one. I will say I was impressed with Christopher Makau: a man who organized a TED event in the Kibera Slums of Kenya. I also identified with the words of Gale Tzemach Lemmon in her speech about women entrepreneurs being the example - not the exception. Still, I struggled to sit through enough videos to find a topic I could find my own heart in. Maybe it’s because I’m more inclined to watch American Film Institute interviews, or “Behind the Scenes” vignettes included as part of DVD supplemental materials. And maybe it’s a matter of taste, not preferring to sit through pontifications of budding orators presenting established thoughts and ideas as if they were brand new. It’s harsh. I know. But what is a blog roll without a little honest opining?

I prefer humble, private discussions with leaders in my favored industry – directors like Sydney Pollack. Here’s a man who is totally unassuming, yet a genius when it comes to interpreting the life of humanity through film. Director Shekhar Kapur spoke in a TED event on how we are the stories we tell ourselves, and I appreciated that. But the format for delivery is not for my taste. Give me a two-camera shoot with the subject and interviewer sitting in a private den or study, talking about the simple geniuses of every day life – not as if they are new discoveries, but in a place of respect and reverence. I don’t need all the trappings of elaborate set design and hoards of enamored people. Let the films, the work of these greats speak for themselves.

“By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Florida Film Connections for Women (and Men)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:47:00 +0000

http://www.womeninfilmfl.org/

Florida is not Los Angeles, and it is not New York. But that doesn’t stop Florida’s film industry from growing increasingly stronger with the years. Florida ranks as one of the top three states for tax incentives and, according to the Orlando Business Journal, follows only Louisiana and Illinois. Additionally, statewide resources well-justify the tax benefits and rebates available to filmmakers. Renovated in 2010 and located in Sarasota, the Florida Sound Stage touts 20,000 sq. ft. of open space with power coming from three locations. There are almost 60 local film festivals listed in “Film in Florida’s” website, and trade organizations including the Screen Actors Guild, Teamsters and the Writer’s Guild have chapters throughout the state. One notable chapter is the Women In Film & Television, Florida. Women In Film was founded in 1973 to represent women in all disciplines of film and television. In 1989 the WIFT-FL was established with the goal of increasing and promoting more film work throughout the state – for both women and men. In concert with both the tax benefits and resources that Florida has, Women in Film stands as a formidable connection point of empowerment. Joining the WIFT adds nodes of contact by helping members hone skills, expand influence, and enhance careers through mentorship and a supportive network of professionals. Sponsors enable outreach programs, and association committees represent the organization throughout the community. WIFT-FL uniquely joins advocacy with 40 other chapters around the world in promoting equality and productivity. Under the umbrella of the Women In Film organization of Los Angeles, filmmakers in Florida can connect through the parent organization’s various programs, classes and competitions. Mentorship is a key factor of success in any industry, but imperative in the field of film. As a highly competitive career path, trying to be the lone wolf is suicide – especially in Florida. Although tax incentives and resources continue to draw talent to the East Coast of America, Hollywood still stands as the loudest voice of cinema. If filmmakers want to “make it” in the industry, finding some clout to lean on is a necessity. The Women in Film & Television, Florida appears to be a viable and reliable resource existing for that very purpose.

Save the Cinema: Taking Responsible Action

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 02:33:00 +0000

Part three of the three-part series, “Revival of the Fittest: Evolution of the Movie House Experience.”
(See Part two)

The success of a movie theater depends upon customer satisfaction, but customers aren’t simply satisfied by the movie itself. It is a uniquely enveloped experience that entices people to buy a ticket. Else why would movie watchers leave the comforts of their own home cinema? There is not enough incentive nowadays to draw any substantial crowd to the theater. Surrounding the film must be features the audience does not have at home. For instance: pseudo drive-in viewing rooms give a uniquely vintage seating arrangement, or places like the Cinema Grill in Colorado offer event hosting and full dining experiences. Theaters who are short on ideas for in-house rebranding can turn to companies like The Screening Room, who take charge of revamping and renewing the appeal of existing theaters. The Screening Room’s sole mission is to re-invigorate the movie-going experience through conceptually developing boutique cinemas. “Boutique cinemas combine the magic of the movies with the natural appeal of a coffeehouse, café or wine bar to create a true destination spot.” Alternatively, if ambitions are greater than simply boutique, visionary cinema owners can take inspiration from San Francisco’s Sundance Kabuki, where local curated art, rotated quarterly, hangs on the walls. A truly posh experience.

Most notably, theater owners like AMC take a socially conscious approach. Teaming up with the Autism Society, select AMC theaters are set up as optimal viewing experiences for families of autism. Called The Sensory Films Program, screening room lights are lit and sounds are kept slightly down. “Guests are allowed to get up and dance, walk, shout or sing, creating a safe and accepting movie going environment for individuals who might otherwise never be able to attend a movie due to the challenges of autism.” According to the Autism Society, families are allowed to bring dietary-specific foods, and AMC’s strict “Silence is Golden” rule will not be enforced. Through the support of AMC, Sensory Films show in 33 states across the country, where many grateful families can take their autistic child to the cinema - without fear of reprisal.

Whatever the persuasion, there is no reason to let drowsing dogs lie when it comes to the economic downturn of the movie theater business. In other words, there are no excuses. Business is about ownership and innovation, and there are plenty of examples to glean from. We’ve spent time examining the root causes of this ‘crisis,’ dispelling any grounds for entitlement the general public (and theater management) may think they have. Now is the time for action – especially with the increasing threat of movie house closures. At this point, accountability lies with the responsible and informed. I propose megaplex cinemas outfit their screening rooms with multi-functional resources to support options like a Cinema Daycare or Cardio Cinema. To promote particular films or campaigns, open a thematically geared gift shop to encourage point-of-sale purchasing. Whatever the solution, the point is that they exist. With a little creativity, there is great potential to turn this movie theater mess into a silver screen miracle.

Who’s Fault Is It, Anyway? Examining Root Causes to the Movie Theater Industry's Deconstruction

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:31:00 +0000

Follow-on to part one of a three-part installment, "Revival of the Fittest: Evolution of the Movie House Experience."

In 1948 the Supreme Court ruled big film industry control over the movie business violated anti-trust laws. Because the major Hollywood studios vertically controlled production, distribution and exhibition, the oligopoly prevented competition within the marketplace. Although loosely enforced (if at all), the divorcement decree still exists today. With the FCC recently relaxing rules against cross-ownership between television, print and radio, and the new era of digital distribution and exhibition growing strong, there is reason to wonder if the restriction on Hollywood vertical integration is even relevant anymore. Lifting the ban would allow Hollywood to once again bolster up movie theaters, bringing back the customer base that is waning.

But is it really their responsibility to intervene? I think not. After the divorcement of production/distribution and exhibition, the relationship between Hollywood studios and movie theaters compartmentalized. Production companies draw crowds in by focused marketing on a particular film, while owners of movies theaters are responsible for facility advertising and sustainment. This relationship passes accountability of the movie theater over to its management team as a separate business entity. Movie theaters are their own business. They are not entitled to “bail outs” by the production company. Their profit-loss margin is just that – theirs.

The truth is that more and more theaters are closing their doors across the country. But if you look closely at each as a distinct entity unrelated to its product (the movie), you have a service-oriented business that is individually responsible for inventory, advertising and market relevance. No matter what the business, if that model does not make changes with its industry, their failure is inevitable. Most movie theaters are not doing much in regards to service improvements, hence the growing number of closures. We can lament that one of the world’s favorite leisure activities is fading away, but it’s not simply because of changing times. American movie theaters are fading away because of bad business management and virtually no brand development. Result: no brand loyalty and decreasing relevance.

No more is a film enough to draw a crowd. People opt to stay home if all they want to do is watch a movie. Not to mention films aren't promising enough anymore to peel people away from their 42-inch flat screen plasma t.v. and endless trips to the snack bar (the kitchen). Some theaters are turning to outside agencies in an effort to develop marketing strategies. For example, West World Media out of Connecticut specializes globally in exhibitor and venue-marketing services, strategically directing customers back into dimly lit caves of fantasy. Yet at large, the issues plaguing movie-houses are internally rooted: lack of ownership. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The popcorn is still bad. The floors are still sticky. The prices are too high in relation to the non-experience movie-going now is. If more theaters would take on projects like facility overhaul or strategizing with project specialists externally, they might have a fighting chance. Thankfully some places in America have gotten a clue and are actively enhancing the theater’s appeal. Alamo Drafthouse Cinema employs a chief creative officer solely responsible for creating unique programming events. Fox Restaurant Concepts marries film and dining into a boutique experience. Other major chains are following in suite by offering special dinner seating elevated above the general audience. There are many options available that do not include dependence on Hollywood for hand-outs, and practical business sense eliminates excuses for entitlement. The success of a movie theater is dependent on the creativity and management of its owner. But having a handful of specialty theaters will not save the theater experience as a whole. What other projects can be implemented to “save the clock tower?!” A problem is only worth pointing out if possible solutions follow. In part 3 of the "Revival of the Fittest..." series, we’ll talk about infusing the portals of escapism with new life.

Disintegration of the Movie Theater

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 03:03:00 +0000

Part one of a three-part installment, "Revival of the Fittest: Evolution of the Movie House Experience."

At the rate movie houses are closing, it is evident the economic downturn has affected the film industry greatly. However, another large factor affects this trend: market evolution. With more consumers turning to “Video On Demand” (VOD), the industry has no choice but to concede by moving their exhibition to an online format. As a result, we have seen a significant drop in movie house ticket sales since it’s heyday in 2002. So who is to ‘blame?’ How can it, or should the theater exhibition model be saved? What is the fate of the movie theater experience?

There are 32,362 movie theaters in North America. 23,573 are closed; 11, 039 are demolished or scheduled for demolition; and 8,789 are still open for business. Of the 8,789, only 7, 282 are showing movies; 263 are slated for restoration; and 388 are under renovation. Wholesale revenue from distribution, the industries historical cash cow, dropped more than 45 percent between 2009 and 2010. In May of last year, the MPAA expressed support of the FCC’s act to ‘green light’ digital transmission of newer movies. This comes in defense of the piracy gap between new film premieres and distribution. Additionally, the FCC and MPAA feel this move is in the best interest of audiences and their growing demands for flexibility. Many fault big industry executives as a root cause and their resistance to splitting profits any more than necessary. While that may be true, why is that a fault? Successful business planning requires periodic evaluation of all ratios for productivity and asset deficiencies. It is a key business strategy to control success through controlling cost and determining relevant trends to follow. But it sure doesn’t help hearing executives weakly defend their position with excuses. (i.e. disabilities and children keep families from going to the theater). Call a spade a spade: it’s costly to premiere a movie. The profit loss margin is too great now, and it simply makes smart business sense to push for dual availability. While true digital sales will not make up for loss in wholesale DVD distribution, and significantly lower future revenues are a stark reality, the market trend is already moving speedily down another track.

Film production and distribution companies are consumer-driven. The consumer wants convenience, and the pirating won’t cease. The fate of film exhibition is already sealed: the theater experience is an endangered species. That is, unless executives find another way to bolster the movie house business model. But is that really their responsibility? I’d argue that it is not. In the next installment we will examine exhibition responsibility and accountability throughout history verses now. Every creative industry is marked by change motivated through transformation and adaption. Filmmaking is no different. Whether we like it or not, the digital exhibition model is a way ahead for the industry.

Part two of three in the "Revival of the Fittest..." series: Who’s Fault Is It, Anyway?

Examining Root Causes to the Movie Theater Industry's Deconstruction