Free Is The New Black

According to Time:

When Finnish filmmaker Timo Vuorensola came up with the idea for his movie Star Wreck, a parody of Star Trek, he knew that looking for conventional distribution would be futile. An amateur, science-fiction comedy with a miniscule budget — and in Finnish, to boot — would hardly be attractive to mainstream studios. So Vuorensola took matters into his own hands: he used a Finnish social networking site to build up an online fan base who contributed to the storyline, made props and even offered their acting skills. In return for the help, Vuorensola released Star Wreck in 2005 online for free. Seven hundred thousand copies were downloaded in the first week alone; to date, the total has now reached 9 million.

"Releasing it for free is just good marketing," he says. "Whether it's through piracy or distribution your film is out there on the Internet, so we decided to harness this." And he has managed to make quite a bit of money out of it. Online sales of merchandise — including T-shirts and collector's editions of the DVD — have generated $430,000 on a film that only cost $21,500 to make, Vuorensola says. He and his team have also now secured a proper distribution deal with Revolver Entertainment in the U.S. and Britain.

Read the rest of the article here.

Thanks to Legionnaire Jim Henshaw for spotting this.

Technology That Affects You and Me

Mark R Robertson at Reel SEO Video Marketing reports that YouTube is now supporting HD 1080p video. They're also going back and re-encoding previous uploaded 1080 video capable projects. What does that mean?

Hmmm... let's see:

• Broadcast quality video streaming for free to the producer.

• Ad capable (if it gets enough hits)

• Basically you have your own network!

So get that Canon 7D out there and start shooting!

Jim Shelley runs down the whole ITablet and open source tablet rumors. This is important because quite frankly no one really wants to read their comics on an IPhone. It really does the artists and storytellers a disservice. We can do better.

And yes - we must do better. We are poised to take some of the business away from people who forgot the audience. Well hell, we are the audience and we at least deserve a shot to try an entertain "our people."

While at AFM I heard Stephen Susco (GRUDGE) talking about genre writing, and I'll paraphrase here and say:

You don't see thousands of websites that get millions of hits and funnel billions of dollars centered around the Rom-Com. There's a huge audience for genre material (Scifi, Action, Horror and the blending of same) that's always hungry.

Feed them something good.

The Internet: Open for Discussion and Application

It's here. It's in your hands.
Use it.
Otherwise it's going to get taken away.

Pulpy Stuff You Know You Want (Okay I Know I Want)

From Sideshow Collectibles.




















And the New Doctor Who Logo (not that I want the logo - I'm just anxious to see the show)


---------------------------

And for all you FTC folks out there: I'm NOT getting paid directly to endorse these products or media. I need to work on that because affiliate marketing and promotion is part of the chain of commerce throughout the internet. Make that hard to navigate and you actually harm trade. People know when you're bullshitting to just make sales. The sniff test on that is really simple. If you want to have any sort of reputable commerce through your site - you ONLY endorse products that you like and actually appeal to your audience.

I do get sent DVDs and books and other products to review. The product manufacturers/producers/writers don't always like what I have to say. But I notice no downturn in the amount of material I receive. Anecdotal evidence to be sure - but then again, I write for a living. Anecdotes come with the DNA.

And Who Didn't See This Coming?

From our friends at Tubefilter:

The Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog sequel rumors have been flying since days after the web musical premiered online last summer. Still, despite strong desire from fans and the cast themselves, there wasn’t any movement on the ‘Dr. H 2‘ mostly due to creator Joss Whedon’s primary commitment to his FOX series Dollhouse. But this week there’s new confirmation that the project is moving forward.

During a conference call to promote the new season of Dollhouse, Whedon somewhat officially confirmed that a sequel is going to happen:

The main question, he says, is whether he does it “on a shoe string again” or goes bigger budget and “invites other people into the process.” Either way, he promises that it won’t affect the storyline. (via TV Guide)

In terms of those “other people in the process,” we do hear that Whedon is shopping a digital studio proposal around Hollywood, including to the major studios, looking to raise investment in the $5 million range, according to sources. The unnamed Whedon studio will apparently look to produce four original web series a year, two of which will be directed by Whedon himself. One of those two will be the above mentioned Dr. Horrible sequel.

Hell - Might as well just paste it all up:

By Tubefilter Research estimates, the Streamy-winning show grossed just under $2.5 million, a number that was later reported by in a recent Forbes feature on Whedon. With a production budget just over $200,000, that’s not a bad return on investment (12x). But the question remains can he strike web gold again?

The revenue was largely driven through digital download sales at iTunes partly by accident as the initial release took down the free streaming version on the Dr. Horrible site itself. This, and the short initial window on Hulu caused thousands of fans to pay the $3.99 for the full season. Then there was the highly touted DVD release right in time for the holidays that featured the artfully crafted musical cast and crew commentary. The business model proposed for the new studio would follow that same paid-download and DVD model.

As for the title of Dr. Horrible’s new season, it’s anyone’s guess at this point. The NY Post unsuccessfully tried to sneak it out of Nathan Fillion during an interview about Castle, though Fillion did say he knew what it was.

Also to be determined is whether or not web star Felicia Day will return in some way after her character Penny was killed in the show’s surprising finale. This is Whedon we’re talking about here and who knows, it’s possible Penny could return, as one fan postulates, as Dr. Horrible’s evil clone/robot girlfriend.

A good first step.

But what's interesting are the recent opposing articles articles by the Hollywood Reporter and by Variety. HReporter taking the position that the "Long Tail" isn't working, and Variety showcasing Whedon as someone who caters to a niche.

So which is it? If the Long Tail isn't working and you can't make a profit from a niche (or rather people don't flock to niches as previously thought), then how does Whedon, who Variety characterizes as never having a "hit tv show" able to make his niche work and find financing? How is he able to make $2.5 M from a $200K investment and share that with everyone involved?

I think that what needs to happen is a lot of discussion as to the methodology of the study HR sites in their article, and a redefinition of what constitutes a "niche." I personally think that someone could make a lot of good money from creating content for specific niches - superheroes, steampunk, splatterpunk, alien invasion porn, etc... and spread that content out across many different platforms and revenue streams.

We live in interesting times.

Make Something! The Studio Edition

Hoist the sails kids. The pulp winds be a blowin'.

This has been reported elsewhere, but LA Times' blogger Joe Flint has an excellent blurb in the Times' blog "Company Town" that finally brings some hard research to an old idea here at Pulp 2.0. I am reprinting it below with my commentary after:

The studios' path to profitability? Make more movies.

by Joe Flint

Money's tight. Financing is nowhere to be found. DVD sales are slumping. What's a big studio to do?

Make more movies.

That contrarian thinking is the word from industry research firm SNL Kagan, which just released a report suggesting that cutting back on production is exactly the wrong thing to do right now.

Kagan looked at the 611 major studio releases between 2004 and 2008 and then broke them down by genre (comedy, drama, action, etc.) and year to create imaginary slates of five,10, and 15 films. Then the firm ran three versions of each slate with a mix of movies with high probabilities of success (action) and low probabilities of a big box office take (adult drama).

Without getting caught up in the nitty-gritty of the analysis (which is available for a fee here), the end result of their study was that the bigger the slate, the better the odds for profit. The five-film slate had a net loss of $94 million. The 10-film slate had almost $140 million in profit, while the 15-film slate had $466.4 million in profit. The study, which used a time frame of 12 years to determine the results, assumed 8% in distribution costs and 10% profit-participation and also included video and television revenues.

Kagan analyst Wade Holden says if the studios cut back too much, they are "putting themselves in harm's way."

-- Joe Flint

-------------------------------------------------

Here’s the situation in plain English:

Money’s “tight” because the studios put all their eggs in one basket. Tentpole supported baskets to be sure, but the eggs are just as fragile. If a movie bombs, it bombs big. This is the same situation you can find in today’s book publishing -- fewer books published by the mainstream publishing houses who are only backing a few big names (I.e. Stephen King).

You can read about that situation here and how e-publishing is changing the dynamic by taking the “midlist” and “niche“ and search & preference technology (“If you liked this book/DVD/Game, we recommend you try this one.”) and meshing together a new digital paradigm. [Link sent to me via Carlucci]

So why haven’t the studios switched? Frankly, they make too much money by doing it the old way and manipulating how movies are financed and pre-sold, sold back and so on. They keep their lawyers and the bankers very busy moving things around while fewer and fewer actual movies get made.

And don’t get me wrong either. I like big movies. I’m going to see one today after I write this note. However as a self-sustaining business model it’s very risky, and very prone to mainstreaming (“dumb-ing it down for the masses”), which isn’t good for the form nor the business as a whole. You need things to break the standards, defy them, in order to have real progress and innovation.

But again, the studios say, “Why innovate when overall the model, though risky is serving our short term cash flow needs?”

Well for one, international banking and financing policies are changing. Banks are going to take a long look at how multinational corporations are financing their movie product, just as banks are now wading through the short-sighted home lending fiasco.

Credit isn’t available the way it used to be. I can’t really put it any simpler than that. Movie studios are looking around for financing and banks are shying away at lending $200M for a movie - even if the paper (the international contracts) and the cast are already there. It’s tough.

German (and other) tax shelters are drying up, restructuring, tightening, you name it. A major, bankable setup is gone.

And as Joe Flint says above - DVD is flattening (but Blu-Ray is growing) as a revenue source. It’s going to take awhile to transition over to more downloads and BR sales. Make no mistake kids, DVD is where it has been at in terms of actually making a profit on a studio movie so the situation is very transitory.

But now we have research that indicates that studios have to make more movies.

Let’s face it , if they have only x amount of funding and they should make 3Y movies (Y = the number of movies they have previously made) then the result will be that X/3Y = less money per movie. More movies less money to make them.

This is a good thing.

1. More movies = more profit (potential)

A) International buyers generally (like to) buy packages of films

B) Libraries of content continually generate revenue (See: Artisan/Lionsgate)

In both of these scenarios the more movies you have the better your chances of a sale if you have the product to satisfy a demand. Even if you have to split off a package of movies, if you have the library of pictures out there working for you then can constantly be relicensed, repackaged and sold. Movies are what is known as an evergreen product - they tend to not go out of style, or go away and come back (See 1970's Italian action pictures).

As new media is created (VHS to DVD and then Itunes) you have big packages of content to sell.

2. More movies = more people being employed, with more economic dollar turnaround/impact.

Consistent employment is more desirable on a variety of levels then the up and down of freelancing. Steady growth, steady income leads to more people spending and that has a huge economic impact.

3. More movies = more opportunity for people to make movies, learn the craft, get better.

A) On a cast and crew level

B) On a company level

Okay, so one picture doesn't do well. It's not going to kill the company. Stock isn't going to plunge. People won't lose their jobs as the studio cuts back.

4. More movies = meets the needs of the growing diverse distribution methods (Xbox, Set top boxes, Iphones, Ipods, laptops, etc…)

If you have a movie that appeals to a certain demographic, then it makes sense to go to where they hang out and deliver them entertainment. This is extremely important in our rapidly evolving user culture.

5. More movies = Movies that can serve 1 or 2 quadrants of the audience spectrum and not necessarily have to “compromise/mainstream” their content.

See also #4 above.

6. More movies = lowered marketing costs as campaigns can be targeted (no expensive newspaper ads) and easily integrated with other media (i.e. 2929’s day-and-date DVD releases)

7. More movies = more innovation as to how they are marketed and distributed.

A certain audience only uses PSPs? Market and distribute directly to the PSP to reach that audience, then branch out. Marketing via Iphone ads instead of costly newspaper ads. Reimagine key art and sales tools for the digital user generation.

8. More movies = new and innovative ways to finance those movies.

Advertising, product placement, merchandising, subscription. Websites like these.

9. More movies = shifting the production methodologies away from the studios (slow, ossified) and into the hands of producers (nimble, innovative, cost-effective) and locations that rethink the obstacles to the task.

See Leverage video below.

10. More movies = opportunity to innovate, and field test new technologies to produce said movies.

When the budget is down the creativity is (must be) high.

11. More movies = more ways to stretch the storytelling form.

Unconventional plots. Unconventional characters. New editing techniques to maximize story in a much smaller “space.” See Primer.

12. More movies = more development overall. Less per movie development.

If your slate is full you can't spend a lot of time on each movie. It doesn't get pissed on by every executive up the food chain.

13. More movies = reusing assets created for previous movies in new ways.

This is an old studio trick they seem to have forgotten. Remember how the rayguns in one movie showed up in another? Or on the LOST IN SPACE TV show?

One of the great Fred Olen Ray stories is how he trucked the Egyptian tomb set from a jeans commercial over to Van Nuys (for next to nothing) and shot THE TOMB.

Point is - if we are reusing repurposing resources we lower the cost of those assets by being able toamortize the development costs. This idea applies not only to the film-making but to the films themselves. Repurposing relates to #'s 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 above.

14. More movies = Opportunity for more regionalism.

Let's face the fact that even in America, we have different cultures at different parts of the country. Having lived in three of those cultures (The Midwest, the Southeast and now California's cultural mosaic) I can tell you that there is a different attitude in each. Certain things considered important in the big city don't mean a hill of beans in the South. There are different heroes, methodologies and color.

And each has a distinct point-of-view which makes for better stories. I am a big fan of the #1 Ladies Detective Agency. It's entertaining, fun and different than what I'm used to...but I can relate to the fact it's smart in a way that I am not. It's insightful in a way that I am not. It comes from a different place that inspires me to want more.

Because - as a writer, as a filmmaker - if you can see things (people, ideas, locations, etc..) in a different way. You get better.

And if these recent months have taught us anything - it's that we are going to have to get used to things being different. It's a different world. It's time for us to get better.

Gee, who'd a thunk all that could happen just by making more movies?

Not Readers, Not Viewers, but...

Warren Ellis had a post on his website today regarding his Sony Walkman and how his daughter relates to it and other technology. Here's the relevant bit:

I found Lili crosslegged on her bed earlier, her guitar in her hands, earbuds in, watching something on her open laptop. I suspect it was either a guitar lesson, some tabs she’s been looking for, or listening to Theory Of A Dead Man and trying to detune her guitar to C-sharp to capture their tone. That’s how she treats the laptop — what else does it do? And the very conjuring of all those elements in the first line illustrates that her generation do not live with their heads in a laptop or a DS Lite or whatever. Less so, even, than the previous generation. It’s a fully integrated part of their lives, a Swiss army knife for the world. What else does it do?

If I tell her I have a YouTube app on the Sony Walkman I’ll never get the bloody thing back.

But here's how it relates back to us..."What else does it do?" applies not only to the technology but to the media. We have a generation that's going to read books, but they will be books with built-in links to other media. They will be videos with built in blog pages that take them in new story directions (background, alternatives, expansions), or webcomics with soundtracks. Toys with built in wifi.

You want to appeal to today's readers with your media? Then understand you aren't appealing to just readers or viewers...

You have to create something that appeals to users. That dear fiends (not a misprint) is a whole new ball game.

More on this tomorrow.

The Internet is a Growth Industry...

From our new friends at ReelSEO:

The Insight Research Corp. recently released the results of an industry study which states that streaming media will be a major source of revenue through 2014. They classified streaming media as the transmission of digital audio and video files over an IP network or wireless network in real time or on-demand, while prohibiting users from storing the files locally.

For the next 5 years they predict that revenue from streaming media will grow at a rate of 27 percent per year thanks to more and more people turning to online audio and video. That means over 135% growth through 2014.

Robert Rosenberg, Insight Research president said that the growth is coming as traditional television advertising dollars are shunted into online ads.

However, don't go pulling out of traditional media (television) just yet. It's going to take a couple of years to stabilize the industry's metrics so that base ad rates, market penetration and so forth can be determined. If you're working in TV or movies and so on, now is the time to develop that web series, that book for Kindle, or Iphone app - then make the transition.

***Edit to add - and if you're new to the business, now is the time to start making a name for yourself by creating something and getting it out there.

But it's going to happen. Movies and "TV" pumped directly from the web to your home for free... Or a subscription server where you get all sorts of stuff - movies, series, books, webcomics - all built around a single or group of properties or genres. It's not any different than network TV for free or HBO. It's simply going to come to your home computer or set top box and it will be far more interactive than television ever was.