No other indepndent film, prior to Paranormal Activity, had gained as much attention and sucess as the film known as The Blair Witch Project. When the film hit the festival circuit in 1999 things were different. All distribution was in theaters, renting from places like Blockbuster or buying the DVD after the theatrical was done. Everything has changed now. Sundance premiered a few of it's film this year on YouTube. People watch TV shows on the internet the day after they have aired on TV. People watch movies on Netflix and Indieflix. Everything has changed in the world of distribution. But human beings haven't really changed. Human beings watch a film because of marketing. If they don't know, they don't go!
All of the talk of new distribution formats and the fact that the major studios had pulled back from the Indies a year ago have drawn in the attention of filmmakers and filmmaking news sites. Yet, what filmmakers haven't realized, is that because so many formats are now available it is time to understood that what they really needed wasn't distribution platforms but a focus on marketing.
Let's take a look at The Blair Witch Project to see what was done right to get the word out about their film. The information I am paraphrasing from Chris Gore's book "The Ultimate Film Festival Survival Guide, 2nd Edition".
March/April 1995 the original concept for The Blair Witch Project is conceived.
Summer of 1996 they meet with a producer to create "investor trailer". Something that can be used to pitch what the film is about.
Sept 1996 they pitch the idea to investors. They don't end up getting anyone to come on board.
June 1997 Dan, one of the filmmakers goes to work on John Pierson's TV show Split Screen. He shows him the footage.
Late June 1997 John Pierson loves it and purchases the rights to air the segment on Split Screen.
June-July 1997 the filmmakers use the money to cast the three actors to be in the film.
August 1997 They shoot some footage in the woods.
Mid-August 1997 the "trailer" runs on Split Screen as the season finale of the show. But no mention of where the footage came from.
October 1997 The bulk of the filming commnces.
Jan-Feb 1998 The second segment is cut together.
Feb 1998 the filmmakers register haxan.com and blairwitch.com They start working on the website.
April 1998 Very important thing happens... The second segment of The Blair Witch Project airs on Split Screen. This time Pierson directs the viewers to go to the filmmakers site. The filmmaker's message board on their site explodes with tons of responses.
May 1998 People who go to Split Screen's site are directed to go to haxan.com to find out more about the project. The Blair Witch site shows a time line, creates interaction with their audience, keeps people coming back for more. They have people subscribe to their email newsletter.
Late Sep 1998 The final cut of the film is made. 125 people have signed up for their email newsletter.
October 1998 they have sent the film into all the big festivals in the USA. Shortly after bootleg copies spread around from some of those tapes that went to the festivals.
Oct 31, 1998 The Mark and Brian radio show in Los Angeles had a discussion on the scariest websites. One of the earliest fans of the Blair Witch site calls in. So many people go over to the site that the site temporarily shuts down. All the big agencies start to contact them.
Novemember 1998 They are now at 200 subscribers and 7,000 visitors to their site. Sundance calls them and tells them their in.
January 1999, before the Sundance premiere, Filmmaker Magazine interviews the filmmakers. The filmmakers meet all the prospective distributors at Sundance,. The film is screened. The audience loves it. Artisan signs a deal with the filmmakers.
July 16, 1999 Artisan releases the film in only 27 theaters. It grosses 1.5 million dollars.
July 30, 1999 the release is expanded to 1,101 screens in North America. It grosses 28.5 million in it's first wide release weekend. The film is #2 for the weekend.
By December 1999 The Blair Witch Project had a box office total of $140.5 million.
When I ask people what the key to a financially sucessful film is the typical answer is: a unique, creative story that is executed into a great film. But that's wrong. The key to making a film that people enjoy watching is that definition. But the key to financial sucess is what you do with that film. One tool used by a certain person brings different results than another person. Hand over to an "average Joe" the tools to perform surgery and you have a mess on your hands and a dead person on the table. Hand the same tools over to an accomplished surgen who understands what it takes to get the job done and you should have a surgery that is sucessful and a patient who should have a complete recovery.
My point is that if you read this time line (mine is abreviated, you should just buy Chris Gore's book to get the whole story), you see a great story of a well executed marketing plan that positioned what was best about the film to those that would be the most excited. The main key I saw was that one of the filmmakers worked for Split Screen, which gave him the opputunity to show John Pierson the footage. The segments that aired on Split Screen gave the filmmakers the greatest free (and they were actually paid by Split Screen!) advertising.
What's my main point?
Imagine that Blair Witch wasn't made in the 1990's but in the early 2000's. They gain attention, not on Split Screen but something as simple as YouTube or Vimeo. They gain tons of attention, drawing traffic to their site on a daily, weekly manner. Then, instead of taking it to fests or pursuing a major distributor they do something radical... something revolutionary... They use something like Maxcast to stream the film for anyone across the globe to see. Suddenly all that traffic, all that attention becomes an aggregator for the filmmakers. They don't need a distributor.
Fact is, Artisan, when they took over the film, just kept the blairwitchproject.com site going. The filmmakers had done all the work for them. What else do you need to come up with besides some extra cash for TV advertising. All the marketing design, what made the film stand out, was created by the filmmakers.
Is this possible? Yes. So to go back to my first paragraph, things have changed. Filmmakers need to take their eyes off from "but how will I distribute my film" and to a much bigger question, "How will people know about my film?". A world of possibilities are now in your hands, filmmaker, go for it!
Showing posts with label filmmakers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label filmmakers. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The REAL problem with Indie Films.
For anyone following the news on the independent film business they can see that now, more than ever, that industry is struggling to survive. Almost every week there are blogs, newspapers or magazines that are writting some articles about a confrence, festival, or other event where people in the industry debate about how to fix the industry. I think before we try to fix the problem we should try to figure out what the problem really is.
Filmmaker's claim the problem is that many independent distributors (mini-majors, etc) have either gone bankrupt or are no longer acquiring films. The distributors would probably claim the fact that in prior years they were unable to make a profit off the films they did acquire is the problem. I believe both of these are "symptoms" of the problem.
What's the problem? Simple. No one knows, outside the indie festival circuit, what most of these films are or whether they are worth watching. Just because a film comes out on DVD or runs in a theater doesn't mean it's something you or I want to watch. It just means that it came out on video or had a theatrical release.
But we need more than just marketing/advertising; we need to apply the simple principles of "Tested Advertsing" to reach the right niche market for each film and to build a fan base of support for it. Claude Hopkins (the father of the "coupon") created a simple concept using coupons to track what type of ads (on the coupon) drew the largest amount of customers. By doing this he was able to find out what was the best way to promote a product to the consumer.
If indies were able to have their potential audience, beyond the indie crowd that gathers at the fests, interact with their material and react to it, they would be able to gather info on how to best promote their film. This would help the filmmaker understand who would want it the most. There is an audience out there for every film, some are large audiences, some are small.
The problem that the distributors had was that they would see a film at a fest gain some huge attention, but then wouldn't see the same thing when it was distributed nation wide to the main stream audience. Why would that happen? Simple. The film probably catored better to a niche market amongst the indie crowd and less amongst the main stream crowd. The distributors needed to "test" the film more to see who to really reach out to and how to commicate the message of what the film offers best.
There are tons of distribution avenues that filmmakers can take. Some are considering the DIY approach, others are looking to ideas like openindie.com. My consern is that if your film ends up at a theater, but no one knows about it until it arrives, why would anyone be coming to see it?
Imagine a film like "Blair Witch" builds a huge amount buzz about the film and then was released it for people to watch PPV or with limited commerical interuptions from a site? With a large enough buzz around a film and making it available to everyone at the same time via the internet the filmmaker would potentially make more money than if they had gone through a distributor.
All of these ideas I have been personally wrestling with. Then the answer came to me: change the already existing Twitter-Based Film festival (RebFest.com) into something better that helps the indie filmmaker build a fan base. The new RebFest.com site is still under renovation. When it is complete we will post info about it.
-John W. Bosley
writer/director of "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" and also the creator of RebFest.com
Filmmaker's claim the problem is that many independent distributors (mini-majors, etc) have either gone bankrupt or are no longer acquiring films. The distributors would probably claim the fact that in prior years they were unable to make a profit off the films they did acquire is the problem. I believe both of these are "symptoms" of the problem.
What's the problem? Simple. No one knows, outside the indie festival circuit, what most of these films are or whether they are worth watching. Just because a film comes out on DVD or runs in a theater doesn't mean it's something you or I want to watch. It just means that it came out on video or had a theatrical release.
Some would say I'm talking about marketing. But I'm talking about more than just marketing, though. Real marketing is great. My definition would be "communicating a message about what you have to offer". I's not spin, spam, or manipulation... or atleast it shouldn't be.
But we need more than just marketing/advertising; we need to apply the simple principles of "Tested Advertsing" to reach the right niche market for each film and to build a fan base of support for it. Claude Hopkins (the father of the "coupon") created a simple concept using coupons to track what type of ads (on the coupon) drew the largest amount of customers. By doing this he was able to find out what was the best way to promote a product to the consumer.
If indies were able to have their potential audience, beyond the indie crowd that gathers at the fests, interact with their material and react to it, they would be able to gather info on how to best promote their film. This would help the filmmaker understand who would want it the most. There is an audience out there for every film, some are large audiences, some are small.
The problem that the distributors had was that they would see a film at a fest gain some huge attention, but then wouldn't see the same thing when it was distributed nation wide to the main stream audience. Why would that happen? Simple. The film probably catored better to a niche market amongst the indie crowd and less amongst the main stream crowd. The distributors needed to "test" the film more to see who to really reach out to and how to commicate the message of what the film offers best.
There are tons of distribution avenues that filmmakers can take. Some are considering the DIY approach, others are looking to ideas like openindie.com. My consern is that if your film ends up at a theater, but no one knows about it until it arrives, why would anyone be coming to see it?
Imagine a film like "Blair Witch" builds a huge amount buzz about the film and then was released it for people to watch PPV or with limited commerical interuptions from a site? With a large enough buzz around a film and making it available to everyone at the same time via the internet the filmmaker would potentially make more money than if they had gone through a distributor.
All of these ideas I have been personally wrestling with. Then the answer came to me: change the already existing Twitter-Based Film festival (RebFest.com) into something better that helps the indie filmmaker build a fan base. The new RebFest.com site is still under renovation. When it is complete we will post info about it.
-John W. Bosley
writer/director of "The Allan Carter Saga Part I: AMNESIA" and also the creator of RebFest.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)