Can Web Series catch on?

Canada is betting web series will catch on.

On Screen Manitoba reports on a new web series development opportunity and lists web series festivals in Canada and abroad.

Cogeco is piloting a new development program for “Digital Drama Series.” Apply for $10,000 with your mentor to become pitch-ready. They are betting big:

“The Development and Packaging Mentorship Program is designed to fill the funding gap in the digital production industry in Canada by encouraging producers of web drama series to be “pitch ready” in order to attract distribution, platforms, talent and production financing. This pilot project will replace the Cogeco Fund’s existing television Development, Pre-development and Corporate Feature Film Development funding programs in 2015/16.”

The Independent Production Fund also lists the best of Canadian web series.

Netflix’s House of Cards and Orange is the New Black appear on Wikipedia’s list of web series, however, I think this is inaccurate due to their length and similarity to premium cable TV fare.

Got a web series or other web content? Buffer has a guide to promotion/distribution you might find helpful.

My take: my favourite web series is Jerry Seinfeld‘s Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee on Sony’s Crackle app, which I Chromecast to my TV. Currently, I don’t watch anything on mobile or the web. I did like The Guild which I had heard about but didn’t watch until showing up on Netflix. I do remember the first episode of Red vs. Blue, but not as a web series — rather as one of the first examples of machinima.

West-coast TV and film writers earn over $1 billion in 2014

Variety reports that motion picture writer earnings are down, whereas TV writer earnings are up for 2014:

“Hollywood screenwriter earnings slid 5.4% last year to $313.9 million — the fifth straight year of decline — while TV writing earnings rose 2.3% to $725.6 million, according to the Writers Guild of America West…. A total of 3,888 writers reported TV earnings, a gain of 39 slots. Feature film employment fell 5.6% to 1,556 writers, or 96 fewer than in 2013.”

Note that this totals over $1 billion and includes almost $400 million for residuals:

“The WGA West, which has about 8,000 members, reported that residuals surged 2.5% to a record high of $383.7 million with gains of 4.8% in TV to $245.4 million while sliding 1.5% in features to $138.3 million. But the five-year comparisons show that film has been flat while TV has been surging. Film residuals are up 2.8% since 2009 while TV has gained 60.4% since 2008.”

No word on what the WGA East writers earned in 2014.

See the WGA Schedule of Minimums.

My take: TV writing seems to earn twice as much as film work, even though film pays more. I think that’s because there are just so many more TV episodes to write. One of the takeaways for me is to learn just how few professional media writers there are actually writing.

Telefilm Micro-Budget Feature Winners Announced

Telefilm Canada has revealed the 2015 finalists of its wonderful Micro-Budget Feature Production Program.

In addition, Telefilm announced that the Talent Fund will subsidize the program. This is great news as it assures stable funding for the near future:

“The Fund has raised over $15 million to date from companies, foundations and individuals. The money will be invested over a period of seven years. Sixty percent of the Micro-Budget Production Program will be financed by the Talent Fund.”

Fifteen teams now negotiate with Telefilm for $100K+ in financing for their projects.

“This is the third annual round of projects in the Micro-Budget Production Program, which supports emerging filmmakers seeking to produce their first feature-length films, with emphasis on the use of digital platforms and developing their potential for distribution and audience engagement.”

I notice that this year most of the projects came through film schools rather than film co-ops as in the past.

Future applicants should note an innovative promotion and digital distribution plan is critical:

identify the target audience;
identify the goals for audience reach and engagement;
describe the release strategy;
identify the digital platform(s) on which the main distribution of the project will be made;
describe how the project will be promoted on the chosen platforms;
enumerate the distribution and/or promotion partners that will be pursued;
provide the budget for the promotion and distribution plan;
add any other information deemed important regarding the promotion and distribution plan

My take: this remains the best way to fund your first feature in Canada. Telefilm is rightly proud to have brought 37 features into being in the last three years.

One of the best reasons to make a short film

Nathalie Sejean just posted a fascinating post on her excellent site, Mentorless.com titled To Short or Not to Short? 20 Filmmakers Who Successfully Transitioned from Short to Feature.

In it she lists twenty filmmakers from George Lucas (THX-1138) to Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) who graduated from shorts to features.

See the wonderful infographic.

Canadian filmmakers interested in this path should apply to Bell Media‘s Shorts-to-Features Program right away — the deadline is in two days!

My take: I think this is a good strategy. Particularly because we live in such a visually-dominant age, the more you can show of your storyverse to your potential fans and backers, the better. I lean towards reworking one or two scenes from your feature as a stand-alone short — now you’ve got a film and footage to cut into your crowd-finding pitch video.

Five Tips for the $500 Feature

I recently read Scott McMahon‘s post 5 Tips To Make Your Independent Film More Viable with interest.

He believes that as an indie filmmaker you should:

  1. Do what you love.
  2. Keep it cheap.
  3. Offer value.
  4. Be specific.
  5. Make what Hollywood will not make.

To back up his beliefs, he made a feature for $500 using what he calls Resource Filmmaking.

I followed up with Scott via email:

Why did you want to make ‘THE CUBE’?

“I went to film school, made a lot of awful short films; but one that was half-way decent. Good enough to land a job at Sony PlayStation. I was there for 12 years and ran the Cinematic Department. When that gig ended, I did what any smart person would do when the economy is tanking — make an independent film! After being disillusioned by the traditional way things were being done, I spent the next seven years trying to answer this basic question: ‘If films can be sold online, then how do successful entrepreneurs sell things online?’ I was used to making things in a big playground, spoiled by PlayStation, but I knew there could be a way to make a really small feature film… I just didn’t have a story to tell. Until one day, I did. ‘THE CUBE’ was made because it was a story that I could film and make in my own home and around my full-time job. ‘THE CUBE’ was made for $500 with no crew. It wasn’t planned that way, but my lead actress had a limited window to make the film, so I just redesigned my shot lists to use more static shots than I had originally planned.

A year and a half later, are you in profit?

“I made ‘THE CUBE’ all wrong. It’s a film with no stars, a genre that is not clearly identified, and I built no audience awareness for it. With that said, I knew things would be CHEAP and SLOW. However, I have made money between the theatrical premiere and Electronic Sell Through (EST) sales. So, in a way, you can say I’m a successful filmmaker because I made a film for a set budget and not only made my money back, but made a little profit as well.”

What’s your ROI?

“The easiest way to determine ROI for any über independent filmmaker selling their film directly online is to use the conversion rate of 1%. This means, that if your film gets 1,000 trailer views, then about 1% of viewers will actually pay for your film. 1% of 1,000 views equals 10 sales transactions. 10 x $5 rental price = $50 in sales. You can read more about this 1% conversion rate in a guest blog post I wrote on Ted Hope’s blog. My overall trailer views have been around 5,500. With a 1% conversion rate, I’ve made about 55 sales transactions at around $10 a transaction. That’s about $550 in sales. Adding in the profit made on the local theatrical premiere of about $180, ‘THE CUBE’ has pulled in about $730. Laughable, I know… but it was always designed this way. That’s why I made sure the film was made for so cheap. Now, the cool thing is that I plan on relaunching this film again, with a whole new marketing campaign and targeting an audience who are NOT other filmmakers. I’ll report back on this experiment later in the year to share those results too. The great thing about owning the license to my own IP, I can repackage it, relaunch it, and resell it in anyway I feel will work. So, I still may make more money in the future.”

Do you have another feature in development and what’s the budget?

“‘THE CUBE’ was always designed as a small film for me… and to be used as an experiment to see what works and what doesn’t work when selling a film product online. With my next feature film, I’m trying to apply all the things that should have been done the first time around. This particular film is in the straight up scary movie genre. The budget is targeted at another $500. Why? I’m very keen on trying to get better at making feature films in this budget range and test my storytelling skills as much as possible. I believe one day, someone is going to make a little film for $100 and sell it directly online to an audience and make a million. Remember the iPhone app boom, when a single programmer could make a ‘fart’ app, sell it for $0.99 and make a million? Who’s to say this can’t happen to a filmmaker? Once it does, then the entire indie film industry will turn its head and say, ‘Ok, let’s do it like that.’ Anyway, that’s where my interests lie. When the normal convention is to think that we should up the budget and go bigger… I want to go even smaller.”

What’s the one piece of advice you’d like indie filmmakers to follow?

“From all the work I’ve done over at FilmTrooper.com, where I focus on trying to help filmmakers become entrepreneurs, this is the one thing that stands out for me: Filmmakers should ‘let go’ of their ego and surrender their talents to SERVE a group of people who they have determined to be their IDEAL FANS. Putting yourself in a place where you are SERVING others will give you greater joy and fulfillment… more so than any award can ever give.”

My take: thanks, Scott, for sharing. I also think smaller budgets force filmmakers to come up with creative solutions to challenges, rather than just throwing money at ‘problems.’ A $500 budget certainly enforces some creative discipline — Ingrid Veninger in Toronto raises the bar to $1000.

Is it Crowd-funding or Crowd-finding?

Nathalie Sejean of Mentorless.com recently blogged that We Are All Unique, But We Are Not Special (or Why We Should Stop Asking for Ridiculously High Amount of Money from Potential Backers to Let Them See Our Film).

She argues that:

“Setting $50 as an entry point to see your film in a crowdfunding campaign is neither okay nor a good idea.”

She discusses the Established System and the emerging Neo-System.

In the Established System you needed to convince FINancers that you were the right person to make the project and that it would make a profit.

Whereas, in the Neo-System, you need to convince people to become FANancers.

“In the Neo-System, you don’t need to convince people that you can do the job, they assume you can do it, you just need to convince them your story is worth seeing the light of day. People don’t give money to our projects because they want to make more money (not yet at least). They don’t care if our film  makes big bucks. Honestly, they don’t even care if it hits theatres. In the Neo-System, the first thing backers care about is seeing our film. Within the Neo-System, our story matters more than we do.”

She wants filmmakers to make sure they don’t mistake FANancers as FINancers.

“Why ask for 4 or 5 times what someone would pay at the theater to give them the “privilege” to see our film? By doing that, we are sending the wrong message. We are telling people that they don’t deserve to watch our film unless they can pay what is essentially five months on Netflix. We are telling people that we are special.”

My take: I really like Nathalie’s insights into crowd-funding. The whole article is worth reading.

Why do people do crowd-funding?

Alan Tudyk’s Con Man has set a new crowd-funding record on Kickstarter, raising over $3.1 Million from over 46,000 fans.

But Super Trooper 2 still has nine days to go and has already raised over $3.6 Million from over 39,000 funders.

Trying to make sense of it all?

Elizabeth Gerber and Julie Hui’s “Crowdfunding: Motivations and Deterrents for Participation” is the most scholarly exploration of crowd-funding I’ve seen.

They see Creator Motivations as:

  • Raise Funds
  • Expand Awareness of Work
  • Form Connections
  • Gain Approval
  • Maintain Control
  • Learn New Fundraising Skills

And Creator Deterrents as:

  • Inability to Attract Supporters
  • Fear of Public Failure and Exposure
  • Time and Resource Commitment

Supporter Motivations are:

  • Collect Rewards
  • Help Others
  • Be Part of A Community
  • Support A Cause

Whereas the main Supporter Deterrent is Distrust of Creators’ Use of Funds.

See her article in the Huffington Post and listen to her on NPR’s Marketplace.

My take: although the rewards appear irresistible, crowd-funding is a lot of work so do your research first.

New Crowd-Funding Records in the Works!

Not one, but two film/video/web projects on Indie Go Go are breaking crowd-funding records.

Con Man, by Alan Tudyk and Nathan Fillion, closes this week and has raised over $2.8 Million from over 41,000 supporters.

“Wray Nerely (Alan Tudyk) was a co-star on Spectrum, a sci-fi series which was canceled yet became a cult classic. Wray’s good friend, Jack Moore (Nathan Fillion) starred in the series and has gone on to become a major movie star. While Jack enjoys the life of an A-lister, Wray tours the sci-fi circuit as a guest of conventions, comic book stores, and lots of pop culture events. The show will feature all the weird and crazy things that happen to Wray along the way to these events.”

For $25 funders get to watch the 12 episodes on Vimeo On Demand.

Super Troopers 2, by Broken Lizard, closes in a couple of weeks and so far has raised over $3.4 Million from over 36,000 supporters.

“Howdy. We’re Broken Lizard. Several moons ago, we made a little indie movie called Super Troopers, which we debuted at Sundance in 2001. We’re proud of how it turned out and apparently it struck a chord with many of you out there because almost daily we get asked “Who wants a mustache ride?” (“Who doesn’t?”) or “Did you chug real maple syrup?” (“Yes, and we will never, ever, ever do it again.”) or “How is the view from sugar heaven?” (“Sweet.”) But more than anything else, we get asked:When are you gonna get off your assess and make Super Trooper 2?”

For $30, funders get a digital download of the feature. For $35, funders get a Fandango movie ticket to the (as yet unmade) film plus other perks.

Both projects have surpassed the current record of $2.48 Million set only last July by Lazer Team.

Kickstarter still has a bigger record: $5.7 Million for the Veronica Mars Movie Project.

My take: I think it’s interesting that both of these projects are based on earlier enterprises, if not outright sequels. That’s one way to bring a lot of fans to the bazaar.

Two crowd-producing platforms: Storyhive and CineCoup

Funders are turning to the crowd to help green light their projects.

Storyhive, Telus Optik TV’s web series venture in BC and Alberta, has already listened to the crowd to fund a first round of 29 semi-finalists to shoot their pilots. Voting concludes tomorrow, March 26, 2015, for a further $50,000 for two teams to produce five more episodes.

Cinecoup‘s 74 hopefuls have posted their trailers online and now await the crowd to begin voting on April 6, 2015. By mid-June, one project will advance to win $1,000,000 to shoot a feature film.

In both cases, teams have worked hard to advance their projects. Storyhive was free to enter (although required residence in certain cities) with a two-minute pitch video. Semi-finalists were awarded $10,000 to make their first webisodes. On the other hand, Cinecoup cost up to $120 to enter, with a one-minute trailer. Teams agree to tackle a series of up to a dozen (unpaid) missions while the crowd votes projects through a series of gateways: Top 60, Top 30, Top 15 and the Final 5. In both cases, juries make the final decisions.

My take: please check out these sites! My kudos to the participants for investing so much of their time and energy into their projects — and it’s a lot of work! — work that supports two ‘contest’ platforms in exchange for the promise of future rewards. I personally don’t think that either platform has solved the website versus television design question yet — video galleries on static pages versus the single video focus of TV. Channels and up-down, left-right grids may be the best solutions for now.

The best summary of the mediascape to date

The excellent CMF Trends has released another excellent white paper: Content Everywhere 2: Securing Canada’s Place in the Digital Future by the Canadian Media Production Association.

The 33-page report focusses on developments in the ‘linear, original digital content space’ in Canada, the US and the UK.

With facts and figures, it outlines the ‘videofication’ of the Internet:

“CISCO predicts that video traffic will be 79% of all consumer Internet traffic in 2018, up from 66% in 2013. Internet video is growing at a rapid pace, increasing fourfold by 2018 and consumer VOD traffic will double by 2018. For example, the amount of VOD traffic by 2018 will be equivalent to six billion DVDs per month.”

The report next analyzes the SVOD trend, OTT original content, nimble Internet successes and old media forays.

Case studies from all three countries follow.

One conclusion:

“The biggest obstacle is discoverability in a crowded marketplace –- and the only way to address this challenge is to produce a show that you know has an audience.”

The report closes with this summary of common characteristics of digital-first content across all markets:

  • Global, universal stories
  • Pre-existing and demonstrable digital audience
  • Underserved audiences (in traditional media)
  • Unique creative, perhaps unsuited to traditional media
  • Creative appealing to younger digital audiences
  • Premium talent or ‘event’ programming
  • ‘Digital native’ skills (social media, community building experience)
  • Transmedia competency to market and support content

My take: worth the time to read! Excellent insights and case studies. The takeaway is that you no longer make something for a comissioner/distributor, you make it for your audience. BONUS: email addresses of Digital-First Buyers in Canada, the UK and the US!