IS OUR INDIE SCENE TOO MARKETING OBSESSED?

By Scott Macaulay in News
on Monday, April 19th, 2010

Too enthralled by the latest social media craze? Those are the questions posed by producer Mike Ryan (Junebug, Life During Wartime, 40 Shades of Blue) in his essay in the new issue of Filmmaker, which you can read online now.

From his piece:

Developing content and nurturing auteurs should be our top concern, not figuring out distribution models or revenue schemes. The whole purpose of independent film is to make films that aren’t prefabricated to hit a target audience of someone else’s devising. In fact, it’s that kind of market-centric thinking that puffed up the bubble with derivative films; it’s those goals that made indie go flaccid in the first place….

I worry that the traditional gatekeepers – the festival programmers, the critics and the producers – are starting to ignore the cultivation of true visionaries by wholeheartedly drinking this niche transmedia Kool-Aid. If gatekeepers start to agree that the only way to make indie film relevant again is through new forms of community outreach then there is a chance that films that alienate and aren’t crowd-sourced huggable will be passed by. I fear that in the rush to embrace new methods of promotion and distribution that worthy yet seemingly unpromotable films will be completely ignored. If festivals get behind day-and-date VOD or free YouTube multiplatform releasing then isn’t there a chance that these fests will pick films that best lend themselves to these new screening platforms? Films catering to easily distracted Web surfers and not contemplative theatergoers? Likewise, are there producers passing on strong work because it can’t be broken into Webisodes and streamed on YouTube?

Also in this issue is the latest in Lance Weiler’s “Culture Hacker” series. In this issue he writes about the very kind of creative app-making that Ryan’s piece would seem to argue against.

From Weiler:

Mobile apps offer not only a direct channel to audiences but they carry your story to places where the audience will consume it. As stories travel they can harvest a variety of data such as: GPS coordinates, viewer preferences and/or contact info. This data can be filtered and used in a variety of ways to enhance a story. For instance, media (video, audio, photos) can be released to viewers when they reach a certain location, data can be used to connect audience members who share similar interests around a story, and characters can contact players directly via SMS, e-mail or even phone calls.

Do these articles represent contradictory ideologies, as one Twitter followed tweeted (while citing herself as “Team Weiler”)? Some people will probably feel they do. I— someone whose favorite directors are Tarkovsky and Antonioni but who also fondly remembers an entire summer lost to Zork — don’t. As I wrote in this month’s Editor’s Letter:

I don’t see my appreciation of both Lance’s quest to expand film practice beyond the screening room and Mike’s mission to make sure our rush towards new business models doesn’t stifle the web-disconnected auteur as contradictory at all. I know both these men and can attest that their positions come from passion, core belief, and hard-fought experience — not calculation and received wisdom. I will be attending the premiere of not only Lance’s film, when he makes it, but his app as soon as I can download it. And I can’t wait for the next Bela Tarr film that Mike has been involved with. The point is to allow film practice to bring us closer to our artistic desires, not farther away from them.

What do you think?

Tags: distribution, marketing, Mike Ryan, social media, transmedia

http://www.thebraveandthekind.com John W. Yost

I couldn’t agree more. This article is a breath of fresh air and inspiring to those of us who thought we were crazy to stick to our guns and make something of quality instead of quantity.
Thank you Mr. Ryan!
http://www.hammertonail.com tully

Amen, brother.
raz cunningham

If you really think about it, it makes sense that a lot of the media covering indies would focus on this because it seems to be the common thread of what’s working in each instance of success, but we certainly can’t leave behind the art- that’s what its all about. Until the more widely read sources shift their focus away from the “indie world in crisis” and to the “indie world doing okay” mentality, we’ll still be seeing a lot of social media coverage and a lot more on marketing (which, don’t get me wrong, is a huge component to harvesting an audience)
Eyjafjallajökull

I wonder what Leonard Maltin thinks…
John M

Great essay. Along with recent posts from Michael Tully and Vadim Rizov, I sense the slightest groundswell, tipping us back to the reason we’re doing this crap in the first place. Hopefully this article will make it to the “traditional gatekeepers.”
jim mckay

great article by Mike Ryan.
things have been too marketing obsessed for a long time now.
even filmmakers themselves rarely talk with one another about story, themes, art anymore.
it’s all about playing for that money….

thanks for posting, scott.
Gregory

This is what I think of this. http://workbookproject.com/newbreed/2010/04/11/slaves-of-industry/
William

Someone had to say it.

I need Mr. Ryan’s e-mail address or phone number forwarded to me so I can buy him a beer.
http://www.variancefilms.com Dylan Marchetti

I am one who markets indie films. But I think this is simple.

If you don’t make a good indie film, I can’t market it.

It’s not (at least for us) that marketing is taking up too much of the conversation, because we’ve been operating under the assumption that if the content isn’t there (and great), then there is no conversation to have.

You make a great film, then we’ll figure out a way to get it to an audience. Simple as that.
http://politicalfilm.wordpress.com/ Joe G.

Mike Ryan,

Can I repost? Contact me at the blog.
Scott Macaulay

Thanks, everyone, for the comments.

Dylan — so the corollary to what you are saying would seem to be that every good film can be successfully marketed. Do you believe this to be true? Does that make “good” synonymous with “marketable,’ then? If not, when and how do the terms differ? And are you saying that you can market every “good” film, or do distributors and marketers have different affinities and skill sets just like directors, making not every distrib the best match for every film?
http://sabipictures.com Zak Forsman

I agree that citing a contradiction here misses the mark because what Lance Weiler does is not marketing. It certainly provides more places for people to discover the project as a whole, but it is simply an expanded universe — storytelling across multiple platforms. It is a creative endeavor equal to scripting and shooting a motion picture in a more conventional manner. Whether the filmmaker is plugged in to social media or not, the work has to be compelling to be “marketable” — whether that means having some superficial genre “hooks”, name actors in your cast, third party vetting by festivals, or tremendous word of mouth.

And Scott, sorry this is off-topic but happy to note you are a Tarkovsky fan. The “sabi” of Sabi Pictures is a Japanese word as defined by him in Sculpting in Time. That text has been a guiding light through some very dark days in the editing bay.
Eyjafjallajökull

Of course what Lance is doing is marketing. Everything he promotes at this point — all this cross-platform stuff — grew out of his marketing for the Head Trauma video release. Nobody knows him for his actual movies — he’s known as a self-promoting distribution and marketing guru.

Why did George Lucas create toys and games and TV specials and cartoons based around Star Wars? It had nothing to do with artistic universe creation. It was about making money. Lance is doing the same thing, only he’s branding it as art.

And here’s the rub. This cross-platform concept might work for Lance because he’s a genre filmmaker, and genre fans tend to be more susceptible to universe immersion. But most DIY films aren’t genre-related — they’re usually small, character driven films that are lucky to find an audience existing solely in movie form. Seriously, could you imagine Wendy and Lucy: The Video Game? Or A Joe Swanberg graphic novel? Or Antichrist action figures?

Why did Arin Crumley become an alternative distribution guru? Because he made a movie that wasn’t good enough to get traditional distribution, thought it should’ve gotten traditional distribution, failed to achieve traditional distribution — then, in a fit of narcissism, determined the traditional system was broken and he would find a new method.

It still comes down to the same thing: MAKE A GOOD MOVIE.

Instead of promoting new distribution experiments, film craft should be emphasized.
John M

I second what the volcano said.
Scott Macaulay

Zak, that is really well said — better than my attempt in this month’s editor’s letter. What I feel most strongly about is a) people following their creative passion across different forms if that’s what they are excited by; and b), people not feeling they have to do that if they are not creatively stimulated by it. Lance is someone clearly in the former group — his brain works that way, and he expresses a lot of creativity through these other outlets. He showed me the Android app for his upcoming project at Sundance and I thought it was pretty stunning. I’m currently experiencing this divide right now with two projects I’m working on producing. One is already kinda transmedia as there are literary and photographic dimensions to its storytelling and lots of potential to extend its story into other areas. Yes, these will have, I guess, a marketing component, but it’s something I’m interested in exploring with the director and the rest of the team. The other project has less of that wired potential in its story and the various collaborators aren’t naturally part of that world. As we try to get the project off the ground I’ve been thinking of what we can do on this project, but it definitely feels more like working on the marketing as opposed to creative play.

Eyjafjallajökull, maybe Lance’s ideas grew out of the “Head Trauma” release (although I don’t know his story well enough to say for sure), but I think at this point they are their own thing. What I find exciting about his current work is how there is less of a division between the film object and everything else. It’s all part of one creative world, as I wrote in my response to Zak, above. I do agree, however, that genre-oriented work is, at this point, a more natural fit with some of these ideas. (Although I’m waiting for the artist who works in other forms to start exploring these approaches, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more novelists or artists heading there first.)

As for Arin Crumley, I think he became an alternative distribution guru kind of serendipitously. Those 4EM video podcasts were huge hits way before he even finished the film, and those are what led to his audience-aggregation abilities. I loved that podcasts and think few if any filmmakers have made pieces as good in that form since.
http://sabipictures.com Zak Forsman

Seriously, could you imagine Wendy and Lucy: The Video Game? Or A Joe Swanberg graphic novel? Or Antichrist action figures?

Haha, no I couldn’t imagine those. What I could imagine is a Wendy and Lucy production journal with clips from the production and any number of extensions with audience contributions that circle a dog lovers niche. I could see an AntiChrist graphic novel, but probably wouldn’t read it. :) And yeah, I think Joe Swanberg could easily expand the universe of one of his films with some short vignettes that serve as a prelude to, or continuation of, the feature film — perhaps pushed out to an official Swanberg mobile app that allows users to opt-in with their email address and location. Admittedly these are not well-thought out suggestions. And they are a little too underdeveloped. I’m just seeding ideas that explore the potential. I agree genre stories (and ensembles of characters) lend themselves to a larger universe and story that moves across platforms. They certainly have more room to innovate.

With all due respect, when you say the foundation has to be MAKE A GOOD MOVIE, I think you’re missing the point. The point being, that for the truly motivated, transmedia isn’t about assets that surround a film, it’s about interdependent components that tell a story across multiple platforms. Each being essential to a full experience of it with varying levels of engagement. So when i say that a filmmaker who embraces transmedia isn’t necessarily doing so for marketing purposes (expanded reach and awareness is certainly a goal for any artist), I’m saying the thrust behind those who do it well is the creative endeavor to TELL A GREAT STORY that’s bigger than a single motion picture.
http://www.variancefilms.com Dylan Marchetti

Hey Scott-

Can every good film be successfully marketed? That’s partially a question of scale. If by successful you mean mass-marketed (on an indie level, meaning Sony Classics mass-market, not Disney mass-market), then no, not at all. But I do believe that a really great film will almost always have at least one built-in audience, the audience that wants to see really great films, and that’s an audience that you can generally reach. Not easily- it takes creative thinking and a lot of legwork, event-izing your theatrical dates, and breaking away from the “we’ll place these print ads and these web ads and this Facebook page and put out the postcards and cross our fingers” model that fails 9 times out of 10.

Now whether that’s “successful marketing” or not depends on what the filmmakers have as their benchmark. Is it finding a real audience to appreciate your film? We won’t promise you a million dollar gross, but we can definitely make sure people know your film is out there and give it a louder launch then a simple direct-to-VOD. Is it purely financial profit? If you’ve made a tiny, personal story and have spent $2 million doing so, that’s going to be a hell of challenge even if it is great. If you’ve spent $100,000, then you’ve got a real shot.

I absolutely think that different distributors and marketers have different skill sets, I know I/we do. I think it’s incumbent upon filmmakers and producers to get a real sense of what a distributor or consultant will do with their film before delivering it to them. Look at their past films, look at their past campaigns. Call up directors and producers that have worked with them and ask tough questions.

We are the first to say “we love the film but this isn’t for us, try calling up XXX” if we don’t think we can deliver on expectations (theirs or ours), great film or bad- but I don’t think everyone operates that way, which is an issue. I’m throwing one thing down right now- if a distributor or consultant won’t tell you (or worse, charges you to tell you) what they would do with your film without sending over a full, detailed plan- run. Indie film isn’t an ATM machine, and while there are good guys that are doing good things for good reasons, there are also plenty of people out there who are willing to take your money (the number of which has suspiciously risen sharply in the last eight months to coincide with the layoffs from traditional distributors). You wouldn’t hire a DP without watching his work and asking what he’s like to work with, you shouldn’t put the fate of your film in anyone’s hands, ours included, until we tell you exactly what we’d do with it.

Either way, the overarching point is that with all the talk about inventive marketing and distribution models, when you’re playing in the indie end of the pool, content is king and it’s probably going to stay that way. We do this because we love film, we’re tired of seeing great ones go into the indie film sadness pile, and we think we can help. But it’s hard enough to market a great indie film, and marketing a mediocre one is impossible.

That said, I’d totally buy Antichrist action figures. Brings a new meaning to the word “kung fu grip”.

Dylan — so the corollary to what you are saying would seem to be that every good film can be successfully marketed. Do you believe this to be true? Does that make “good” synonymous with “marketable,’ then? If not, when and how do the terms differ? And are you saying that you can market every “good” film, or do distributors and marketers have different affinities and skill sets just like directors, making not every distrib the best match for every film?
http://desertvows.blogspot.com/ Mike Merell

Good is subjective. One mans garbage is another’s treasure. I love, love, love Antonioni. A lot of people cant stand him, loathe him, wouldn’t know how to market him. Someone could easily argue hes out of date compared to Lance Weiler. I like both. Think we need both. I think there is room for both. And there are enough screens(big or small) right now for them, Arin, GregoryB, Zak, and everyone else. It all kinda seems like a mute point and like Brian Newman said ‘we should all just get along’, because it doesn’t matter(my words). All someone needs is persistence and passion(money will help of course) and the work will get out there, might not be you but someone will like it and someone will help it out into the world. You can call it bad if you want to, that’s been known to help.
http://brentchesanek.com brent chesanek

Mike Ryan says succinctly what took me way too long to enunciate, way back in November 2008.
http://trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2008/11/how-does-all-of-this-make-you-feel.html and http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/blog/2008/12/content-form-and-change.php

Later, Lance Weiler put forth that his way was the solution to my concerns: http://trulyfreefilm.hopeforfilm.com/2008/12/lance-weiler-responds-to-brent-chesanek.html

I read and loved Tully’s and Rizov’s pieces too. I almost feel those of us who agree with these articles/manifestos/etc. will probably stop following the minutiae of these new methods, stop arguing in comment threads, and resume the filmmaking we believe in, maybe resurfacing every now and then to shout our agreement with these types of pieces. Last time I talked to Tully that was his plan–to make something rather than write about how to make something, and to make something disregarding this new found school of thought, in other words, his manifesto, manifested.
http://meskada.com Jenny Jenson

Agreed. I’m watching the inordinate amount of press subject matter for the Tribeca Premiere of Meskada, that is mostly rooted in the fact Kellan Lutz takes his shirt off in the trailer. Apparently, that has gone viral. Oh, and the film happens to be pretty damn good as well.

Premieres tonight at Tribeca. Showtimes are here: http://www.tribecafilm.com/filmguide/meskada-film31136.html
http://www.jaredmercer.com Jared

I truly agree with this article and I find it funny but good that the guy who wrote it is a producer. Maybe I can get some of his backing for my major feature debut? No? Well either way, he did manage to articulate a lot of our feelings well.
Tip of the hat.
http://nofilmschool.com Ryan Koo

I have basically the opposite perspective of Mr. Ryan, but that is not to say that with all of my transmedia and marketing efforts I will forget to “make good movies.” Frankly I find it kind of annoying when people make that point, as if someone’s going to jump out of the bathtub with a eureka moment and run through the town naked when they hear “don’t forget to make it good!”

I just wrote a take on self-sustainability and transmedia here (and yes, I say “make it good” in passing):

http://nofilmschool.com/2010/04/the-nofilmschool-manifesto/

Now that I read Gregory’s post above, I realize he and I are making many of the same points. It may very well be that for my next project all of this transmedia stuff makes sense because it is an expansive storyworld, but for the project after that none of it does, because it’s about one character at a specific point in time. No one’s forcing anyone into this stuff. If you feel like you’re going to too many panels… stop going.

I think the reason there are so many panels and so much blogging (ahem) on the topic is quite simply that making movies and raising money takes a herculean effort, whereas talking about marketing and blogging about new distribution methods is much easier. But all of the sharing going on should be embraced rather than decrying “the youth audience whose minds have been melded by the corporate consumer-entertainment machine.” That’s a gross generalization that doesn’t do anyone any good.
Pingback: PanelGate | Desperate Comfort

IS OUR INDIE SCENE TOO MARKETING OBSESSED?

VOD CALENDAR

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives