PADDLING AWAY

By in News
on Saturday, September 29th, 2007


Over at his Long Tail blog, Chris Anderson posts an email he received from Jeff Bach, an independent filmmaker at Quietwater Films regarding the viability of the “long tail” model for an independent producer. (In this case, it’s a sports non-fiction producer — Quietwater produces films on canoeing for boating enthusiasts).

Anderson posts the whole email, but here’s an excerpt:

But the reality at this time for me and my company is that I need to find multiple large national distributors if I hope to even come close to making a living at this game. And I need to produce fresh content on a reasonably frequent basis. In short, I am a much smaller and more struggling version of the giants that have preceded me. I have the same issues and problems my predecessors did. The only thing that has changed is that I am trying to do it with an awareness of Web 2.0 and Long Tail and several other “New Media” phrases that you can insert here.

Your Long Tail theory is a basic and profound truth that I happily embrace AS A CONSUMER. But as a producer and creator of Long Tail content it is basically spelling out my doom. Other than your book examples which are still basically about VERY LARGE entities and aggregators, I am finding very few self supporting examples of independent Long Tail producers.

This quote resonated with me a week after the IFP Market and Conference. Departing filmmakers there seem to be split between those excited by the marketing and distribution possiblities Web 2.0 has to offer and those whose eyes are glazed over with anxiety at the thought of becoming niche-distributors and navigating this terrain on their own.

In the comments thread (included after the post on the link above), Bach elaborates on his email, and I hope he won’t mind if I quote him at length because I think his discussion of indie wholesale versus retail marketing is relevant to a broader audience of independent filmmakers:

I think paying attention to the demographics of your retail buyer is important as well. For example, I could posit that my typical retail buyer is 40+, affluent, outdoorsy or married to someone outdoorsy. So far so good. But things get interesting when I consider that as my demographic ages, fewer and fewer of them are routinely on the internet in a buying mood, looking to discover a product like I have. They are out there though – but where? For the most part they are in a retail store discovering and then holding the product in their hand before they buy it. Which brings me back to the importance, for Quietwater anyway, of having national distributors and a shelf presence in retail stores. That part of the business then becomes wholesale, with a margin that is half or less of retail, so it makes the volume aspect of the business even more important.

Quietwater is working with two distributors and hopefully that will flesh out over time. I do need to put more effort into the retail (mainly online) side of things, but right now developing the wholesale segment is a bit more active. On the retail side, I built an e-store at Createspace.com. They have a “just-in-time” model that is very efficient and takes care of the credit card and shipping issues as well, which is very significant. Their cost is reasonable as well. On the frustrating side, their online store has Quietwater content buried in a very awkward browsing tree which results in non-existent discovery. Their browsing tree has no entry for “outdoor recreation”, which is a real bummer. Quietwater products (a solo canoe DVD and a rec kayak DVD) are available via Amazon, which does a great deal on the discovery side, but they take a huge chunk of the total sale price. It is depressing to write but…a retail sale on Amazon yields less than a DVD sold wholesale. Is the benefit of discovery on Amazon worth the cost? This is partly why I’m doing more with the wholesale side of the business, it actually makes more $$/DVD than Amazon retail does!

Tags:

You can follow any follow up comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

  • JBach

    Hi Scott
    Jeff Bach here at Quietwater Films. Thanks for thinking enough of my note to Long Tail Chris to post it over here. The response and follow-up has crystallized this issue a bit for me. Perhaps one of the biggest things I’ve come to realize is that in addition to all the good things it represents, this Long Tail notion can be viewed as a “filter”. This notion probably comes from someone else, maybe even Chris’ book, so by no means am I claiming original credit for it. In my view, this filter treats everything equally and responds only to “input” that comes from the content creator/owner.

    “Input” can be generally defined as 1)quality content, 2)the quantity of content, 3)effort, and 4)money.

    This filter is a brutal, uncaring, but for the most part, neutral filter. Given enough “input”, content tends to move through the “filter” away from the tail and towards the head of the curve. At some point, after enough input, the content is no longer a “Long Tail” entity but a “bestseller”.

    This filter responds mainly to “input” from the content owner. The fact that I am currently a micro seller of content brutally tells me that this “filter” is being correctly applied to me as it has been to countless others. I do not currently have enough “input” to achieve success in the expected sense. My content is not on the Red Carpet in Hollywood, nor is it a household name in the paddle sports world. Does this mean the world is against me? That big businesses are the only ones to survive? Does it mean that indie films of any sort are doomed?

    What does it mean?

    It simply means that my current success is in proportion to my current “input”. If I want more success, I have to give more “input”. No one or thing has hurt me or stopped me. Some have helped. That “input” thing is the limiting factor. The filter is telling me that I simply do not have enough quality, quantity, effort, or money. Happily, over time, I think this can change given continued “input” on my part.

    The economy and civilization we live in is staggeringly large. The “input” requirement necessary to move up the tail, towards the head of this gigantic, fragmented, and complex entity is more than I am currently able to give. I think this explains why Hollywood is the way it is. Hwood simply has enough “input” to quickly move some chunk of its content up the curve towards the head. I do not, much like many other micro/small businesses and filmmakers, so my content moves up at a much slower rate, if it moves at all.

    Over time I expect things to improve. Over time, I will continue giving “input” that will hopefully move my content up the tail. Hwood can “input” faster and more than I can, so it sees success more quickly and massively, in proportion to its input. My success is also in proportion to my input. And in the end, I think this is simply how our system works. The more you “put in” the more you “get out”. Brutal and uncaring but thankfully for the most part – neutral. We all have a chance and an opportunity for success and it all boils down to that “input”.
    my .02 thx Jeff Bach

VOD CALENDAR

Filmmaker's curated calendar of the latest video on demand titles.
All In: The Poker Movie A NY Thing #Regeneration
See the VOD Calendar →
Filmmaker's Best Of 2011

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Filmmaker Magazine is powered by WordPress.org.