If you can type, you can make movies…http://tinyurl.com/57y7b2
Simple avatars and typed text-to-sound does not make a “movie”. It makes something that’s mildly interesting but it’s not a “Movie”.
If you can type, you can make movies…http://tinyurl.com/57y7b2
Simple avatars and typed text-to-sound does not make a “movie”. It makes something that’s mildly interesting but it’s not a “Movie”.
Open Source Animated Movie Shows What Can Be Done Today http://tinyurl.com/2d3ajjf
For years, one of the points we’ve raised in answering the movie industry’s $200 million challenge to us (i.e., “how do you keep making $200 million movies?”) is that, in part, it’s asking the wrong question. No one asks “how do we keep making $10,000 computers?” Instead, they look for ways to make them cheaper (and better, at the same time). But in the world of Hollywood accounting, there’s little incentive to make cheaper movies (sometimes the incentive goes the other way). And, we keep showing how the world is reaching a place where it’s cheaper and cheaper to make good movies. We’ve pointed out nice examples of people making high quality movies for next to nothing. The idea is not that movies should be made for nothing, but that the technology is making it so that movies can be made for less. In fact, with two of the examples of cheap movie making we’ve highlighted, the makers later went on to score deals to do higher end movies for more reasonable budgets.
The Other Shoe Drops For Radio & Cable http://bit.ly/aFNkE1
New research shows that people are abandoning old media by the millions for Internet media. And if they aren’t abandoning it, they are cutting way back on the time the spend with it.
The article then goes on to detail the bad news for cable companies with people cutting basic cable or cutting back to less expensive cable, then it goes on to show how much audience radio is losing among younger people. Interesting background statistics.
Distribution U., coming to NY and LA http://bit.ly/cVEsfV
Very few events get my unqualified endorsement but I attended Distribution U last year and learnt a lot and thoroughly recommend it to anyone that is even considering doing independent distribution.
In fact, go to any Conference or Seminar where either Scott Kirsner or Peter Broderick are speaking: they’re always interesting.
The event has a couple objectives:
– Let filmmakers connect, find new ways to collaborate, and help one another succeed.
– Talk about what’s changing in terms of funding, distribution, and audience-building, with actual examples and case studies, rather than theoretical predictions.
– Hear directly from filmmakers about what they’ve done successfully with their most recent films to get them seen by a large audience, and earn a solid return. (We also talk about what didn’t work, and wasn’t worth the time or investment.)Â
– Enable participants to sit down with industry experts for small group lunch conversations on very specific topics, like working with the media and bloggers… understanding the way VOD deals work… organizing theatrical screenings that make money… and more.
– Provide ideas and strategies to several filmmakers in the audience, as part of an on-stage brainstorming session.
– Get participants charged up and excited about new possibilities, as opposed to depressed about how things are changing.
This week I had an unplanned trip to Boston to fill in at the Boston FCP User Group meeting for Rich Harrington who’d suffered a back problem and wasn’t able to travel. I travelled American Airlines instead of my normal choice, JetBlue.
That led me to thinking about marketing because of the differences between the two airlines. Let me say up front there was nothing wrong with American. The flight was on time, the crew were ok, the inflight entertainment is a decade out of date (technically and from a marketing perspective) but generally they didn’t do anything wrong.
And yet, I found the whole experience lacking compared with JetBlue. Why I asked myself, and what can I learn from it.
American Airlines is an “old” airline with a long history and tradition, and a lot of old aircraft. JetBlue has outfitted most of its aircraft in the last decade or so, to a uniformly high standard. On JetBlue we get leather instead of 70’s design cloth seats.
And that’s part of the problem. The cabin was not modern. In fact, it wasn’t well maintaned at all. Seat back pockets were falling off and falling against passengers’ knees. Not one of the six in-cablin screens that I could see were remotely watchable: five of six screens had black levels around IRE 40, one around IRE 20; two had severe magenta shifts and one a blue shift. And so on.
This can’t be a pleasant work environment and, while pleasant enough, there’s a whole different vibe between the cabin crew on American Airlines and the cabin crew on JetBlue. (There was nothing that I felt worth commending anyone on, whereas I’ve had occasion with JetBlue to send in multiple commendations for above-and-beyond service.)
You see, the bottom line is that American only cares about the bottom line. $25 to check the first bag, $35 for the next! Checked baggage makes more available space for in-cabin baggage and you’d think they’d encourage it. (Here’s a tip. Don’t check your bag unless it cannot fit in in-cabin storage. Take it with you. If there’s not enough space, they’ll gate-check it for you for free, and the gate check is ready when you exit the aircraft unlike the long wait for checked baggage. Just from observation on two flights this week.)
JetBlue think about the whole experience. Just take the in-flight entertainment, for example. On a six hour American Airlines flight we got one movie on the small, ceiling mounted in-cabin CRTs with the affor-mentioned problems, and one NBCU “package” with one TV show and a bunch of short excerpts running about 90 minutes. The other three hours there was no visual entertainment. There were a few audio channels. The movie started more than an hour after leaving the gate. On JetBlue you have a choice of 40 channels of JetBlue on your own seat-back screen, which fills a whole lot more of your field of view than a distant 14″ CRT.  Or your choice of interactive games. Or the whole set of XM Satellite Radio stations. In other words, JetBlue cares about keeping the customers occupied during the flight, with personal choice. An occupied customer is more likely to be  a happy customer.
So if American’s focus is their bottom line, JetBlue’s focus seems to be the customer experience and running an efficient modern fleet makes that easier. But beyond that it’s about how every interaction between customer and company forming the marketing.
When I see a badly maintained cabin, I worry about the rest of the maintenance on the aircraft and wonder if it’s safe to fly with that airline. Logically that doesn’t make sense because there are legally mandated safety standards for the aircraft but none for the cabin, that’s just “marketing”. But people are not logical about things like this. Marketing is always to the emotion not logic.
My takeaway is that it’s no longer enough to just satisfy the customer. I was satisfied with my flights this week, but disappointed because I’ve become used to being “delighted”. Satisfying the customer is no longer enough. You must delight them.
That applies equally to every business transaction that we do; every interaction every single person in a company has with their customers. For example, no-one in any company I control, or in my family will ever fly United Airlines again because of one in-cabin personnel’s totally illegal and out-of-proportion response to my complaint that the light did not light anywhere near the actual seat, like it was supposed to. Her response was to tell me be quiet or I’d be arrested on landing. Totally out of proportion and I would say illegal. I didn’t tell United because a simple Internet search showed that they didn’t care about any customer response. I just withdrew my business. That’s going to cost United $15,000 in the next five years as my mother flies the Pacific twice a year to come visit. She now loves VAustralia.
Marketing is every interaction by every person in your company with every customer.
Optimization Tips for Google TV http://bit.ly/alUtTf
Since there are currently no available Google TV devices, this advice is somewhat premature, but you might as well file it away for the day you’ll need it.
Personally I’m not sure about where Google TV fits with Apple TV: nerds vs normals?
My friend Carey Dissmore commented on Twitter today:
AppleTV represents a ‘new model only’ (internet+local content streaming), Google TV attempts to skin old tech. That old tech being traditional cable and satellite. It’s middleware to bring legacy tech together.
Independent Film’s Path To A Viable New Business Model http://bit.ly/d6CMtj
A longish, but great take on where we are now in independent distribution. Covers topics:
On licensing in the new ground rules, he’s a realist:
On licensing, if anyone can get your film for free, the only sensible licensing scheme is to distribute with no restrictions on copying and reuse. I realize this rubs some people the wrong way (it used to rub me the wrong way), but in the new era, attempting to enforce all-rights-reserved copyright is a business disadvantage for anyone without a team of lawyers. With no feasible technical approach to stop reproduction and sharing, the only option is to attack legally. That takes lawyers and they are not cheap. Which approach is cost efficient – a market with profits that depend on copyright enforcement via legal channels or the venue that makes money despite unrestricted distribution? If you want to understand the future for copyright licensing, Lawrence Lessig is required reading. He lays it out far better than I ever could, plus his work is of the rare sort that is equally genius, entertaining, and inspiring. Specifically, hit up Remix and Free Culture – pretty sure a couple chapters will convince most anyone. You can buy the books or (Lessig puts his money where is mouth is) download them legally for free here and here.
The real cost of Free http://bit.ly/cd8njl
I read responses like these and I really wonder why anyone cares about mainstream media, with their lack of research, wholesale publication of press releases (without disclosure) and the tendency to push headlines (and page views).
Apart from Guardian columnist Helienne Lindvall publishing material with zero research, making claims that were simply not true about Doctorow’s speaking fees, but manages to completely misunderstand that no-one has ever said that “content wants to be free”. Many business models include free content: commercial radio, broadcast Television and newspapers have long used free content as part of their business model.
Doctorow makes the point:
The topic I leave my family and my desk to talk to people all over the world about is the risks to freedom arising from the failure of copyright giants to adapt to a world where it’s impossible to prevent copying. Because it is impossible. Despite 15 long years of the copyright wars, despite draconian laws and savage penalties, despite secret treaties and widespread censorship, despite millions spent on ill-advised copy-prevention tools, more copying takes place today than ever before.
As I’ve written here before, copying isn’t going to get harder, ever. Hard drives won’t magically get bulkier but hold fewer bits and cost more.
Networks won’t be harder to use. PCs won’t be slower. People won’t stop learning to type “Toy Story 3 bittorrent†into Google (NSDQ: GOOG). Anyone who claims otherwise is selling something – generally some kind of unworkable magic anti-copying beans that they swear, this time, will really work.
So, assuming that copyright holders will never be able to stop or even slow down copying, what is to be done?
What is to be done are that new business models must be created around free content and there have been any number of success stories, particularly in film and music. Remember that all Corey Doctorow’s books are available free under a non-commercail Creative Commons license. He has had two books on the New York Times bestseller list for the past two years. He knows what he’s talking about from his own experience.
Read the whole article, it’s well worth it.
For Independent Films, Piracy Is A Red Herring http://bit.ly/bpLA5Y & http://bit.ly/dkXHqq
To date no-one has actually been able to prove a single penny of lost revenue due to unauthorized distribution. The RIAA/MPAA surveys on the subject are great works of fiction, completely without factual basis (or even rational discourse).
So when the LA Times published an article with filmmaker Greg Carter claiming that he had lost “hundreds of thousands” of dollars due to unauthorized distribution. Unfortunately, like all these type of articles, any fact, substantiation or – dare I say – proof, is completely lacking. The article is a fact-free zone supporting the assertion.
Well, both Techdirt.com and some other independent filmmakers take on the assertion and dismiss it.
From Techdirt:
Reader jjmsan was the first of a few of you to send over this silly piece in the LA Times claiming thatindependent filmmakers are being hurt by unauthorized file sharing, but it’s completely devoid of any actual evidence. It kicks off with the story of one indie film director who released a movie and insists that he’s been harmed. But what’s the evidence? Well, a lot of people have downloaded his film. Ok. So? When other movie makers saw that, they put in place smart business models toencourage people to buy something, and they did quite well because of it. By embracing file sharingand combining it with smart business models, tons of filmmakers who never would have been able to do anything with their film have now been able to build an audience and make a living.
But probably more relevant is the response on incitecinema.com from other independent filmmakers :
It’s undeniable that piracy has substantial impact on studio films. The higher profile the film, the more ‘leakage’. For independent films, though, it’s extremely rare for piracy to noticeably affect revenue. The independent film audience by and large has no interest in stealing content. They just don’t. The fact that a film is out there on file sharing sites doesn’t prove that a single person has downloaded the film and watched it. In fact, some of the most visible file sharing sites aren’t file sharing sites at all. They’re fishing sites that use every film title under the sun as bait to lure unsuspecting users into thinking they’re downloading a film or other content only to have their machine infected by a virus and/or taken over by a bot.
I think they’re wrong in the (again unsubstantiated) assertion that “piracy has substantial impact on studio films. Once again, no-one has provided evidence that would support that assertion. High profile “leaked” films have gone on to set box office records and do great business with no apparent harm.
Ed Burns talks about independent distribution http://bit.ly/97iy0n
More than “the” new model, one of many new models of financing independent film. Both this post and the one I did earlier on ‘Freakanomics the Movie‘ harken back to the connection with fans and giving them some reason to buy.
What he’s done over the past few years is essentially strengthen his commitment to indies, but with a twist: instead of making films that require studio backing or extensive financing, Burns’s latest film, and the scripts he has in development, will be produced without studio interference, and instead of chasing after the promise of theatrical distribution, he will only pursue a theatrical release if the situation calls for it. In other words, he’s the poster child for digital distribution, fully embracing a landscape where audiences can download his movies on the portable device or cable box of their choice. And that’s where our conversation began.
The disruption of old models is normal in any industry as technology affects it. I feel confident that we will find enough new models that we’ll have a healthy film and TV industry for many years in the future. (Yes, I do believe that there will be fewer outrageously wealthy filmmakers and TV producers, but there will be many more people making a decent living, like what has been happening in music.)