If you're an indie film pontificator who likes to talk about Radiohead's and NIN's innovative free pricing models, then you should check out the weekly podcast Econ Talk, which spent
an hour with Wired's Chris Anderson, whose next book is all about the trend towards no-cost goods and services. (This topic was explored by Anderson in a recent Wired cover story. I subscribe to Wired, not because I read it that much, but because it's only $8, and I get enough out of it to justify that cost. But I didn't read Anderson's piece in Wired, although I did listen to the podcast, which is free, and which I'm recommending to you. There's an economic lesson in there somewhere, but, hey, it's a holiday, so I'll refrain from figuring it out.)
Anderson and Econ Talk's Russ Roberts talk about the economics of free, and while they don't deal explicitly with film, we'd all do well to start thinking about the implications of their conversation. I'm paraphrasing here, but one of Anderson's dictums is that any business that can go digital will go digital, and that digital businesses want to get to free pricing. He and Roberts also discuss economies other than monetary ones functioning in the digital space -- gift economies, charity, etc. -- and, at the end, Anderson talks about his own business model in a way that a lot of filmmakers could relate to. Again, I'm paraphrasing, but Anderson says, "My business is not publishing, my business is 'me,'" explaining why it's in his interest to make as many free copies of his next book available as possible.
# posted by Scott Macaulay @ 5/25/2008 06:05:00 PM
Comments (2)
I don't think all films are ever going to be free for the audience. Or, at least, we do not have to make it so. Just as the coming of free television did not wipe out movie theaters where people pay to watch movies, or much later pay tv/cable works even though there is free tv, etc. It would be useful to keep some aspects of film exhibition & distribution a direct revenue generating thing from audiences - from ticket sales, not from advertising, or some other secondary source. If for nothing else then simplicity. The current option of an indie/DIY or other filmmaker making a movie, finding a place to show the movie, selling tickets, is pretty simple compared to having to find sponsors, advertisers, etc. to economically justify showing movies.
- Sujewa
#
posted by The Sujewa @ 5/26/2008 1:31 PM
I think Anderson's argument is less compelling when it comes to predicting the future of cultural production. His overall point is that in the new economy the internet drives the price of goods down to their marginal cost, and as the costs of server space decline, that marginal cost approaches zero. The question then becomes how to generate enough revenue to cover fixed costs plus some kind of profit. But the problem with most cultural production, and certainly all independent film production, is that it's next to impossible to predict what if any kind of a value a movie is going to have before it's made, so questions become not about scale and marginal costs but about simply recouping the costs of the fixed investment in the film's production.
In this podcast he makes reference to other forms of non-monetary economy, like the gift economy, and I think that discussion of indie films, and certainly most no-budget films, can pick up on some of these thoughts.
But you're right, for these same reasons that it's hard to quantify the value of an indie film upfront it's also hard to think about ad-supported or sponsorship models at the start.
#
posted by Scott Macaulay @ 5/26/2008 6:26 PM
