The disconnect between Hollywood prizes and profits

There seems to be a disconnect between Hollywood’s fascination with comic book superheroes, their international box office performance, and the Oscars.

Over two dozen superhero movies will be released between now and 2020. (See the list at the end of this post.)

At the Oscars, although dystopian sci-fi ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ scooped six statues, almost all the awards went to ‘smaller’ films: ‘Spotlight’ won Best Picture and ‘The Revenant’ scored Best Director, Actor and Cinematography.

Consulting Box Office Mojo‘s 2015 international rankings, we see ‘The Revenant’ is in 16th position and ‘Mad Max: Fury Road’ is in 20th. Superhero flicks ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ in 6th place and ‘Ant-Man’ in 13th have made more money.

For 2016, ‘Deadpool‘ tops this year’s take so far.  It’s currently the 10th most successful comic book adaptation, and still climbing!

See how lucrative franchises and brands are. The 65 Marvel and DC Comics movies have made over $11 billion at the international box office to date.

My take: I don’t quite understand the fascination with fantasy films. Is it simply that reality is too depressing and people want escape? Or, is it just age at work — so many more young viewers go to the movies and they prefer action pictures? Or, is the advanced average age of the Academy voters revealing their preference for dramas?

The coming comic book movies and their release dates:

‘Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice’ March 25, 2016
‘Captain America: Civil War’ May 6, 2016
‘X-Men: Apocalypse’ May 27, 2016
‘Suicide Squad’ August 5, 2016
‘Doctor Strange’ November 4, 2016
‘Untitled LEGO Batman Movie’ February 20, 2017
‘Untitled Wolverine Movie’ March 3, 2017
‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2’ May 5, 2017
‘Wonder Woman’ June 23, 2017
‘Untitled Spider-Man Reboot’ July 7, 2017
‘Untitled Fox/Marvel Film’ October 6, 2017
‘Thor: Ragnarok’ November 3, 2017
‘Untitled Fox/Marvel Film’ January 12, 2018
‘Justice League Part One’ November 17, 2017
‘Black Panther’ February 16, 2018
‘The Flash’ March 16, 2018
‘Avengers: Infinity War – Part 1’ May 4, 2018
‘Ant-Man and the Wasp’ July 6, 2018
‘Untitled Fox/Marvel Film’ July 13, 2018
‘Animated Spider-Man Film’ July 20, 2018
‘Aquaman’ July 27, 2018
‘Captain Marvel’ March 8, 2019
‘Shazam’ April 5, 2019
‘Avengers: Infinity War – Part 2’ May 3, 2019
‘Justice League Part Two’ June 14, 2019
‘Inhumans’ July 12, 2019
‘Cyborg’ April 3, 2020
‘Green Lantern Corps.’ June 19, 2020
‘Gambit’ TBD

Seth Godin’s metric for work that matters

Contently‘s Editor in Chief Joe Lazauskas recently interviewed Seth Godin for The Content Strategist.

Seth writes about change. In the interview, he talks about trust and content that you actually want to read, among other things. For me the best section, the one that resonates most with me, is this one:

“Q: What metrics do you think best measures the fact that you’re doing work that matters?

A: I think the only one that I care about is: Will people miss you if you are gone?”

My take: I think this is a great approach to almost anything: Do work that leaves a lasting impression.

How the Internet radically transformed the mediascape

Late last year Brian Stelter of CNN interviewed Barry Diller. Diller is currently the Chairman and Senior Executive of IAC. However, his career spans advertising, motion pictures, cable TV and Internet sites, so he has a unique perspective on the mediascape.

In the interview, Diller reframes cable TV, broadcasting and television as we know it. Here’s a transcription of the clip:

Stelter: Are you bearish on cable as a whole industry? Meaning on the bundle?

Diller: No — no, no, no. You have to separate. I actually think that cable, which is now no longer — these words don’t make sense any more, because it really isn’t really cable as we know it. Cable companies are now much more interested in data and broadband. That is where in fact the margins are high and they don’t have to deal with program suppliers, who they all hate. Why do they hate them? Because they keep raising prices. And so, the margins in the old program business have deteriorated while the margins in the broadband business are wondrous. So, you can’t really call them cable companies any more. I don’t even think you can even call broadcast companies, broadcast companies any more, because their over the air signals are now very little in use in terms of direct reception. They’re all being carried by data systems, which is a new word for cable.

Stelter: I love when you say these words don’t make sense any more.

Diller: They don’t. I mean, they really don’t. Because this transformation we’re going through, the radicalism, which is THE Internet, which once it got the capacity to carry rich data, meaning moving pictures and movies, whatever you call it — rich data, once that happened, it was inevitable that it would bust things wide and the result of course is that you’re seeing transformations in all of these businesses.

Stelter: How do you define the word “television”.

Diller: Well television is also a stupid word. Because we think of television — we used to think obviously television was three channels and them it expanded by cable to dozens, hundreds of channels and then thousands and millions of channels via broadband. So, the idea of what you quote “call television” — is televison Netflix? Well people don’t really think it is. They’re trying to make these distinctions. It’s video. You know, I mean, it’s video.

Stelter: So that’s the best word now? For anything like this?

Diller: I don’t know. Make up any word you like. It will probably — television — you know — tele-vision. Just think of the derivation of the word and it kind of I guess applies. Except in people’s minds, television is the old system.”

My take: This is all about separating content from its transmission mode. Commercial over-the-air broadcast technology arrived in the 1940s — it then took numerous decades for TV programming to evolve into its current format. Cable TV appeared in the 1980s and Broadband only 10 years ago. Over-the-air, then cable and now broadband: each new mode of transmission increased the number of channels exponentially, giving more choice to consumers and more outlets to producers. The rub is to figure out how the economics will continue to work. Diller points out that the technological way in which the viewers get the content is where the profit lies.

Scoping out a transmedia campaign

“How Gaming Director Keith Arem Developed His First ‘Transmedia’ Film” reveals all the elements in a well-rounded transmedia project.

These include:

  • an April 8 debut for the UFO conspiracy docudrama film, Phoenix Incident
  • festival screenings in February and March
  • viral marketing that began four years ago
  • an interactive app version of the film for Apple TV
  • gamification elements in the app that reward more active users
  • corporate partnerships

Arem, a video game industry veteran, says:

“With companies like Steam and Apple, the idea is to move away from traditional distribution, and turn the model around to get creators involved in changing the way people experience entertainment.”

The article concludes:

“Arem is planning Phoenix Incident spin-offs, including a virtual reality experience, a television series, and prequel films inspired by other unexplained incidents.”

My take: I think the smartest move here is the choice of subject and genre: UFO sci-fi/cover-up conspiracy/documentary. This guarantees a dedicated niche audience. One thing that surprises me is how long the viral campaign has been active. For the transmedia bible, see Gary Hayes’ “How to Write a Transmedia Production Bible”.

News from the Blockchain

You’ve probably heard of BitCoin. But have you heard of the Blockchain, the system that makes it, and potentially many more things, possible?

At its simplest, the Blockchain is a frictionless, global, secure online ledger. It promises to radically overhaul banking in general and payment systems in particular.

Earlier this month the British music industry heard from PledgeMusic founder Benji Rogers and musician Imogen Heap about “an all-new, uber-transparent system of tracking music rights and paying for usage” based on the Blockchain.

Rogers believes that “the music industry could make use of the blockchain for its own new music format: something he’s dubbed .bc, or ‘dot Blockchain’.”

“Such a format would start with the ‘minimum viable data’ (MVD for short): details of the recording ownership, an ISRC/ISWC/ISNI code; publishing information; mechanical rights information, performer data; global licensing rules; usage rights; lyrics and images; payment details; and contact information.”

According to Heap:

“It’s a way of enabling those services to use the music under the terms of the artists, the rights-owners. We need to set the ethical, technological and commercial standards around how our music is used… At the moment, artists, we’re first in and last out: first in with our work, and right at the end, if we’re lucky, we get some cash back.”

Rogers concluded with an aggressive timeline for the new format:

“My goal is to have it by the end of the first quarter of this year. It’s gonna be name of song, name of artist, ISRC… I’m optimistic that we can come up with a suggested minimum viable dataset relatively quickly. I think it needs someone to really take this by the scruff of the neck in terms of doing it… If we can’t agree what five or six pieces of information constitute fair trade, we should all quit, because it shouldn’t be that hard.”

Wait, there’s more! CB Insights claims twelve industries will be remade by the Blockchain:

  1. Banking
  2. Payments and money transfers
  3. Cybersecurity
  4. Academic records and academia
  5. Voting
  6. Car leasing and sales
  7. Networking and IoT
  8. Smart contracts
  9. Forecasting
  10. Online music
  11. Ride sharing
  12. Stock trading

My take: if this can work for music, it can work for visual media too. Imagine releasing your work into the wild and compensation following back from viewers directly to you. When this comes to pass, whole industries of intermediators will disappear and artists will speak directly with their audiences.

Green, white, grey or black: what’s the colour of your online media?

I was thinking about strategies for online media dissemination and devised a means of organizing them by colour: green, white, grey and black.

Green is the colour of money — these outlets charge viewers to watch. Think of everything from the VOD pay-per-view titles on your cable provider to iTunes to Vimeo on DemandReelhouse and many others. Can I Stream.it makes it easy to find any movie your want to stream and pay for, in the U.S.

White, on the other hand, is the absence of green and in this case represents free access to media. Think Youtube, Crackle, Open Culture, the Internet Archive and many others. (Let’s ignore user-generated video on Facebook or Vine or Periscope or Instagram.)

Grey is a mixture of white and green or white and black and stands for three things:

  1. Free behind a pay wall. Think SVOD like Netflix and Fandor and CraveTV and showmi in Canada. Yes, hopefully there’s a bit of money heading your way here, so, greenish grey, perhaps?
  2. Apps for IP TV, perhaps using Chromecast.
  3. API hacks that create meta-versions of otherwise free but hidden media. Think VineViewer.co and OnPeriscope.com.

Black represents illegal offerings. I avoid these so I can’t speak to them but we’ve all heard the industry’s warnings about the vast revenue they lose to pirates.  Think torrents.

So what’s your strategy?

Give it all away on white sites? Mirror the old world traditional media model and stick to green and grey sites?

You won’t be able to make money on all these platforms but independent media producers should be able to approach some of these outlets directly. The larger ones will require an aggregator.

Try to avoid the black sites, unless that figures into your strategy. Give away all your BTS material and point viewers to your pay site?

My take: I think it would be great to create an infographic on this topic! Suggestions for other outlets appreciated.

Real world budget numbers of an indie feature

As teams around Canada put the finishing touches on their first feature pitches for round one of Telefilm’s micro-budget program, I thought it would be instructive to look into some real world budget numbers for an indie feature.

Stephen Follows did just that for the UK independent feature Papadopoulos & Sons. See his long post.

The budget for the 24-day shoot in London was £825,000, fully financed by the film’s first-time producer/director Marcus Markou. That’s approximately $1,350,000 in 2013 dollars. (In other words, skimpy but still about ten times a micro-budget.)

Here’s the breakdown:

£ 0,775 Story, Rights & Continuity
£91,046 Cast
£19,014 Supporting Artists
£90,332 Production Staff
£93,245 Art Department
£32,070 Wardrobe
£16,782 Make-up/Hair
£53,371 Electrical
£58,580 Camera
£16,882 Sound
£77,918 Travel/Transportation
£28,670 Hotel/Living
£70,111 Location
£27,343 Overtime/2nd Camera
£ 0,482 Digital Stock & Transfers
£25,507 Music
£83,929 Post-Production
£ 9,307 Insurance
£ 2,556 Legal & Clearances
£ 7,705 General Expenses
£ 2,900 Publicity
£ 0,750 PACT & Training Levy
£15,947 Fringes

Once the film was made, Marcus moved on to distribution. (A lot of indie films follow this formula, with no pre-sales up front. This puts them in a weaker position than if they had some guaranteed revenue.)

A producer’s representative negotiated deals for Greece, Germany and airlines.

The film played four festivals: the Dinard British Film Festival, the Thessaloniki Film Festival, the Palm Springs Film Festival and the Seattle International Film Festival, and also screened at the European Parliament.

“By this point, the film had a German, Greek and airline deal but was still lacking a UK distributor. Marcus is not someone who gives up easily, and so he turned to self-distribution. Via Miracle Communications, Marcus struck a deal with Cineworld cinemas which placed the film in 13 screens for a week. Marcus identified Greek communities throughout the UK by looking for Greek Orthodox churches. If there was a church, he’d target the local community, using a variety of off- and on-line media.”

The cost of that was £35,525, which earned him £45,601 — a profit of only £10,000.

His TV deal with the BBC earned him five times as much: £50,000.

“The biggest cheque Marcus received was from the UK taxman, in the form of his rebate for the UK film tax credit. If your film is certified as officially British then the tax credit will give you 20% cash back on the money you spent in the UK on certain costs. The eligible costs are confined to activities within pre-production, production and post-production; meaning that all the money Marcus spent on distribution, exhibition and marketing are not included in the calculation. In the case of Papadopoulos & Sons, the UK film tax credit came to £156,000, or 19.1% of their overall production budget.”

The German TV deal netted Marcus £36,072.

VOD sales earned almost £35,000, the lion’s share of that from Netflix.

“The Netflix deal is for the UK and America and the gross is around £15,000 per year for a two year deal. The sales agent takes 15% and the aggregator takes a further 15%, leaving Marcus with 70% of the gross.”

In total the film earned £399,055 in two years — less than half of its cost:

£158,000 UK tax credit
£88,259 TV
£45,601 UK theatrical
£34,942 VOD
£32,667 Airline
£15,594 Germany theatrical
£12,753 Greece
£ 9,374 DVD
£ 1,131 US screening
£ 0,459 UK screening
£ 0,275 Speaking fees

However, Marcus has a long-term vision and says of the venture:

“Think of this as a long-term investment. The capital is sunk up front. After a couple of years I am 40% recouped. The hope is that after 10 years I will be fully recouped. But because of the strength of Netflix and BBC it’s clear this film will have a long shelf life. In year 11, that means every penny that comes in will be PROFIT! Think about it. If in year 11, I am making £25k per year that is £25k per annum with NO COST. This is why catalogues of old films are so valuable. Because if you have 20 films like this, making £25k per annum with no costs… well, you can do the maths. You must not underestimate the long-term value of a movie once its sunk capital has been recouped. In the West End a musical will have to run for two years before it’s profitable. Most never get to the two year mark. With a movie, if you have a universal story that has a long shelf life, you can be collecting payments for 20 or 30 years. So I would always argue that this is a long haul investment. If I took the same £1m and put it in a bank, you may find that after 20 years Papadopoulos has out performed on a return many times over. This is the recoupment stage but it is also still selling – e.g. the US DVD and possible impact of Netflix rolling out across multiple territories. You say: existing deals MAY continue to pay out. They WILL continue to pay out because I get paid quarterly and for DVD, VOD, Netflix etc. Not in advance. So many deals are not completed yet (e.g. Netflix) so it’s not a MAY it is a WILL.”

Stephen concludes with this advice for indie filmmakers:

  1. Self distribution is not easy.
  2. Who you know, helps.
  3. The cost of deliverables adds up.
  4. Soft money is vital for survival.
  5. The publicly available data can be wrong or incomplete.
  6. Research your marketplace.

My take: There are many take-aways here. Tax credits may be the biggest source of revenue for your film. TV revenue may double theatrical. VOD revenue may soon eclipse theatrical. Be creative in identifying your audience — I love that Marcus used Greek Orthodox churches to pinpoint his target audience.

Short film is dead. Long live web series!

I have made over 40 short films.

Today, to me, making a short is like painting a picture in the park on a Sunday afternoon. Pleasant, but unchallenging.

With this in mind, I recently read an old posting by Mike Jones at No Film School.

In it he argues that the short film is dead.

“There are two ways of looking at how a Short Film serves the emerging and aspiring filmmaker. The first is as a Learning Exercise, the second is as a Calling Card.”

He then proceeds to debunk both beliefs and concludes:

“As with many long-entrenched elements of filmmaking, the tradition of the short film needs to be let go of and seen as the antiquated anomaly it is; a tool of a bygone era. A good short film can be great work of art but emerging and aspiring filmmakers need much more than a short work of art to build a career. The short-format, online, episodic webseries is the most dynamic, audience-driven, self-publicising, learning vehicle indie filmmakers (in film school or not) have ever had access to.

My take: I’m warming up to this idea. I’ve been toying with a concept that could be realized as a dozen episodes. 2016 will be a great year for me to launch it! Stay tuned!

Media empires in Canada

ClutchPR has published a fascinating infographic on the concentration of media ownership in Canada.

Their self-admitted non-exhaustive list is Toronto and Ontario-centric but nevertheless does a great job of illustrating various TV, Radio and Print media empires.

The companies listed are:

  • TorStar (Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator, Waterloo Region Record, Guelph Mercury, versions of commuter paper Metro in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax, and 116 community papers)
  • Woodbridge (Globe and Mail, Thomson Reuters)
  • Postmedia (Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen, Regina Leader-Post, Vancouver Sun and Windsor Star, in addition to tabloid Sun family: Toronto Sun and others in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver’s The Province, magazine Financial Post Business and Canada.com)
  • Rogers (Rogers TV, OMNI, Shopping Channel, OLN, Sportsnet and City, SVOD player Shomi (which it co-owns with Shaw,) 53 radio stations, including 680 News, Kiss 92.5 and 98.1 CHFI, plus magazines Canadian Business, Chatelaine, Maclean’s, Today’s Parent, Marketing, Flare, Glow and Hello! Canada)
  • Bell (CTV and CTV News, CP24, MUCH, Bravo, Comedy Network, Space, E! and HBO Canada, radio stations NewsTalk 1010, TSN Radio, 104.5 CHUM-FM and 999 Virgin Radio and Sympatico.ca)
  • Newcap (all but two radio stations in Newfoundland, 22 in Alberta and Toronto’s Flow 93.5 and Boom 97.3)
  • Shaw (Global Television Network, along with BBC Canada, Food Network, History, HGTV, Showcase and Slice, among other stations)
  • Corus (YTV, Teletoon, Treehouse, and Canadian versions of Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Disney channel, W network, Oprah Winfrey Network Canada and 80 percent of Cosmopolitan TV, radio stations Talk Radio AM 640, 102.1 The Edge and Q107)
  • Zoomer (Zoomer Radio 740AM and Classical 96, and TV stations Vision and One)
  • Quebecor (Le Journal de Montréal, Le Journal de Québec, TVA Group, Vidéotron and TVA Publishing)
  • CBC (CBC and CBC News networks, and CBC Radio 1, 2 and 3, other assets including Radio Canada International and 40 per cent of Sirius Canada)
  • APTN, TVO and VICE

My take: it looks like only a dozen or so companies own the vast majority of media outlets in Canada. What’s missing from this list is Internet Connectivity: Bell, Rogers and Shaw also control the bulk of that.

Mobile is where it’s going

Benedict Evans of Andreessen Horowitz asserts that “mobile is the future of technology and of the internet” in his year-end review 16 mobile theses.

A sample:

“We should stop talking about ‘mobile’ internet and ‘desktop’ internet – it’s like talking about ‘colour’ TV, as opposed to black and white TV. We have a mental mode, left over from feature phones, that ‘mobile’ means limited devices that are only used walking around. But actually, smartphones are mostly used when you’re sitting down next to a laptop, not ‘mobile’, and their capabilities make them much more sophisticated as internet platforms than PC. Really, it’s the PC that has the limited, cut-down version of the internet.”

The topics he covers are:

  1. Mobile is the new central ecosystem of tech
  2. Mobile is the internet
  3. Mobile isn’t about small screens and PCs aren’t about keyboards – mobile means an ecosystem and that ecosystem will swallow ‘PCs’
  4. The future of productivity
  5. Microsoft’s capitulation
  6. Apple & Google both won, but it’s complicated
  7. Search and discovery
  8. Apps and the web
  9. Post Netscape, post PageRank, looking for the next run-time
  10. Messaging as a platform, and a way to get customers
  11. The unclear future of Android and the OEM world
  12. Internet of Things
  13. Cars
  14. TV and the living room
  15. Watches
  16. Finally, we are not our users

Regarding search and discovery, Benedict says, “The internet makes it possible to get anything you’ve ever heard of but also makes it impossible to have heard of everything.”

We moved from browsing to search but today how do the iOS and Android platforms affect discoverability? Is there still room for curation? He ends with the age-old question: “How do you get users?”

Regarding the next ‘run-time’ he says,

“Really, we’re looking for a new run-time – a new way, after the web and native apps, to build services. That might be Siri or Now or messaging or maps or notifications or something else again. But the underlying aim is to construct a new search and discovery model – a new way, different to the web or app stores, to get users.”

Hear Benedict in this presentation.

My take: It’s been a dozen years since video first appeared on the Internet. Since then, the mediascape has been in transition. I admit I find it more faceted and confusing than ever. Benedict’s summary illustrates some of the fundamental shifts now taking place.