Jump to content
lafilm

Film Piracy, Careers Ruined, Sundance, Worth it?

Recommended Posts

Film Piracy. The two dreaded words to filmmakers. Is it even worth it these days?

Look at this shocking information.

http://www.culturalweekly.com/sundance-infographic-2016-ample-distribution-paltry-deals-and-the-cost-of-piracy/

Imagine plunking down $100k - 500k for your film. Piracy happens.

Your film is all over the Internet for FREE before you even leave the festival you got into. Careers ruined. Money and time gone forever.

How do you stop it? 

Hope for a big buy out from a major distributor? (Not likely)

Pray the piracy doesent happen to you (not likely)

Keep the budget so far down for your feature film (50k or less) that it doesent matter? (Possibility)

Listen to this interview with a fairly known horror director whose life was ruined:

http://tinyurl.com/hfxuwqt

Another post that questions is it worth shooting a feature film?

http://tinyurl.com/jolx4wh

And another:

http://tinyurl.com/h7p72yq

Scary and grim facts for independent filmmaker working today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Life is more than filmmaking, but I know what you're saying. It's still theft and it's a shame and a tragedy. 

However, I wonder how many here have participated in piracy? Films. TV shows. Software. Music. Books. Free Sony or Panasonic firmware updates. But hey, no one likes the morality police, until they're the victims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scary is right. depressing too

why cant technology SAVE us from this to SOME degree? at least make it way harder for pirates?

a motivated person is going to rip your video no matter what it takes, but what if my film was available for download not as a video file but an application which needs a time sensitive key? or something?? idk i have no idea but im gonna figure some shit like that out. if that means that you cant watch the film w/o an internet connection, so be it

if youre louis ck and you have a loyal audience youve built over a lifetime of touring and making shows than you can get away with a lot of shit that poor people like me can not

thank GOD im shooting for the fine art business first and foremost. nothing much has changed there in the last 30 years ?

great article by zak btw

http://filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/movie-worth-stealing-filmmaker-piracy-experience.php

thanks lafilm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lafilm said:

Film Piracy. The two dreaded words to filmmakers. Is it even worth it these days?

Look at this shocking information.

http://www.culturalweekly.com/sundance-infographic-2016-ample-distribution-paltry-deals-and-the-cost-of-piracy/

Imagine plunking down $100k - 500k for your film. Piracy happens.

Your film is all over the Internet for FREE before you even leave the festival you got into. Careers ruined. Money and time gone forever.

How do you stop it? 

Hope for a big buy out from a major distributor? (Not likely)

Pray the piracy doesent happen to you (not likely)

Keep the budget so far down for your feature film (50k or less) that it doesent matter? (Possibility)

Listen to this interview with a fairly known horror director whose life was ruined:

http://tinyurl.com/hfxuwqt

Another post that questions is it worth shooting a feature film?

http://tinyurl.com/jolx4wh

And another:

http://tinyurl.com/h7p72yq

Scary and grim facts for independent filmmaker working today.

 

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer.

I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released.

So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem.

Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can.

Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay.

So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended.

I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content.

Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like it used to be worse for sure. enough is affordable or free online legally that I don't need much more or want to risk viruses. occasionally spending a couple dollars on amazon or going to the library.. we're pretty spoiled by legal services these days. it was a bigger problem for music way back when than it is right now too. it's actually really good overall for independent filmmakers that so much is online. I'll watch something decent on netflix 10 times before I buy a decent movie on DVD.

hard to fix, but you have to embrace online streaming obviously. good to keep some perspective since it's so easy to pirate really... But yeah, it's a scary concept that you don't make any money for your work without anyone feeling like they did anything wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is partially the cost we're playing paying for the entry level into the industry being so low. Not but 15 years ago the cost of filmmaking, heck of making a reel, was exponentially higher than it is today. A kid in highschool with $2000 worth of gear and some talent can make a spec that would rival the industries best in the 90s.

That same jump in technology and low entry level means we have a harder time not only standing out, but means we're having to fight piracy at a level unimaginable 15 years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an idea could be to start a little "media campaign" on social networks asking people to share.

if targeted only to budget films it should work.  you must explain the reasons (all the info at first post are perfect). 

I saw "media campaign" about this problems in the past but they were targeted to "oscar movies". those media campaign were also ridicolous, they did not sensibilize people. they only tried to scare people.  

example

 

the title say "Piracy is a CRIME"

"Never steal a car? NO!

Never steal a handbag? NO!

Never steal a TV? NO!

Never steal a movie in the store? NO!

Download pirated movies is such steal!

Piracy is a CRIME!"

 

I was a young guy after seeing this advertising I laughed and I become a super pirate. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lafilm said:

Film Piracy. The two dreaded words to filmmakers. Is it even worth it these days?

Look at this shocking information.

http://www.culturalweekly.com/sundance-infographic-2016-ample-distribution-paltry-deals-and-the-cost-of-piracy/

 

 

I think that piece is rather overestimating how much money those movies really could make. The 5% estimate of how many downloaders would pay for it is more like 1%. If it was a mainstream movie people might be more inclined to pay to see it if they could not pirate it, but if it is a movie they never heard about outside of a few reports from film festivals they would be far less inclined to spend money on it.

Whenever you undertake a business venture the first thing you have to do is figure out how you are going to monetize it, or at least fund it. I assume that the guys making these small movies do the same thing (or they wont be making movies for very long). It is not necessary to generate revenue from the movie itself, you would have to do it up front or you will lose. Downloading digital work through unauthorized mechanisms is a fact of life in the modern world, and you have to work around that. In the music industry the most practical approach is to regard the recordings as a form of advertising to make the audience aware of you, and you then generate your income through live performances. Obviously you can't do that with a movie. Realistically the only way to generate revenue then would be to skip the film festival scene and distribute through traditional means so you get your money ASAP. That is a choice producers have to make, deciding what is more important to them. Money or recognition. If it is recognition they want, then they are going to have to get their funding up front and write off what happens later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Stricter Screening at Film Festivals. I have seen copies made by judges (they have strange watermarks still left on them).

Piracy happens IMHO because:

1. There is not enough strict checking of viewers (mobile phones, along with all other devices should be banned during screenings. People can deposit them and take them back after the screenings). 
2. Watermaking should be made compulsory for all Judging Copies (not for the public screenings at festivals).
3. Films are over-priced. People want an excuse to break the law. Over-charging by distributors and studios gives them an excuse. That is why, one feels more sympathetic towards the smaller, far poorer Indie Filmmakers, than for multi-billion  dollar studios. Piracy is a crime against both, but the Indie Film Makers are worse hit (they may make a single or a handful films in their lifetime). Films should be priced Much Less. Like 1/2 or 1/4th the Price. People would watch a good film 2-10 times, rather than just once. And rather, than watch a bad film even once. But if you pay $2-3 for a film ticket, instead of $8-9, it would pinch you far less. I feel, once would watch a good film priced at $2-3 times, and that could help separate the bad from the good (films). 
4. Film Copyright should have a shelf-life. Making them outside Public Domain for Perpetuity is Monetary terrorism. Creators die long before the companies have stopped milking the projects. 


I want to add, that very often it is Difficult to get a film DVD or something else (now that iTunes is there, I am guessing it isn't really an issue) to watch every film one wants. I know a director who asked one of the studios for a DVD of a film they made in the 70s (or was it 60s), which only hit theaters, and there were no VHS or DVD versions of the same. But he is influential, and most of us have to content oursleves with iTunes an dother channels, if they stack certain films. I guess. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think platforms should change more. People do seem to prefer the convenience of paid services such as Netflix, iTunes and Spotify to get their content through one platform and not having to search for downloads and hoping that it's not a fake or bad quality... waiting for translating groups to come up with inaccurate subtitle translations...

The thing is, if a movie is worth it, people will go into the cinemas to watch it! It's a social event and an audiovisual experience. If it's 'meh', they'll wait for it the first oppertunity to watch it in the convenience of their homes. And... that usually involves pirated movies being out first, so the first thing to turn to! Would movies be released faster, just a few weeks after hitting cinemas, maybe with some monthly fee service (perhaps something like: watch any 10 movies in our library for 19,99/monthly and 15 movies for 24,99, unlimited for 39,99) I can imagine people would pay for the convenience and knowledge everything is going to be proper and not resort to shady half-baked pirated versions! Sure that would mean people would hardly pick up a DVD or Bluray box set anymore. But I think it's becoming a thing like newspapers and magazines as well, everything is trending towards digital formats as means of delivery to the end user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also worth picking up on the language being used here :-

Theft or stealing is a legal term to describe the act of taking something with the intention to deliberately deprive the owner of it.

Piracy in criminal law is the act of violence or depredation on the high seas, in the air for private ends using aircraft or boats.

Piracy in criminal law is also the theft* of intellectual property

*See definition of theft above

Piracy in civil law is the act of distributing intellectual property without permission for personal gain**

** Legal speak for gained liquidisable assets

Filesharing is the act of distributing intellectual property without permission

 

When someone looks up your movie on their favourite piracy website and clicks download, then goes and watches it, they have neither deprived you of your movie, it still exists on your hard drive, so they have stolen nothing from you***, neither have they used a boat or aircraft with violence in the air or on the high seas. Nor have they profited from it. The worst they have done, if we are being correct about what they have actually done is shared your work without your permission - and even then, only if they used a torrent service. There is no criminal or civil issue with someone watching your movie who hasn't paid for it, even public broadcast law allows you to buy a DVD and let your wife watch it.

*** The money they had to pay you to otherwise access the content was never legally yours, so they couldn't have stolen it from you - if you feel like it's a fair argument, then the repercussions of a change in the interpretation of the theft law would extend to shops - I intended to buy that thing she bought, therefore she stole it from me and there would be pandermonium. The best you can do is prove so that a judge is more sure than not in court that the person would have paid for your content, then you can ask the court to order them to pay you that money. This is surprisingly hard, because you will find it very difficult to prove they even watched the film.

I just wanted to make sure people were aware of the correct terminology, because the filesharers are not really the problem, yet they get the blame and all the articles mentioned above talk about pirates, yet then go on to provide numbers for file sharers, I feel like this was what Zak was getting at in his article, the key is indentifying and preventing the pirates, not the filesharers, but he does then talk about number of downloads. As I said above, pirates exist because filesharers needs are not being met legitimately. Give them a path to get your content within their means legitimately and they will, and the pirates will lose their consumers, driving them into their next illigitimate scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sanveer said:


4. Film Copyright should have a shelf-life. Making them outside Public Domain for Perpetuity is Monetary terrorism. Creators die long before the companies have stopped milking the projects.

I don't agree with the policy implications of your points but this here is a real reason that movie piracy is still strong. I subscribe to Xbox Music because ~90% of what I want to listen to is on there, and if it's not, it's probably indie stuff that's available on YouTube in a playlist uploaded by the content creator themselves. Now try this with movies:

http://www.canistream.it/

Try searching for well-known movies off the top of your head. Staples of cinema. Things that you'd actually want to see, not Asylum stuff at the bottom of the Walmart bargain bin.

I tried about 20 movies and didn't hit on ANY ONE of them. That's why Popcorn Time, strem.io, and the like exist. I have no idea why people even bother with Netflix or Hulu or Amazon Prime for movies; it must be the TV shows.

EDIT: Hey, I finally found one.

http://www.canistream.it/search/movie/sharknado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bone Tomahawk popped onto my radar because of a pirate streaming site, as did interesting films like Resolution, Yellowbrickroad, House of the Devil, etc. There's almost zero likelihood that I would have heard of these films had it not been for illegal sharing (well, that and the AVClub.) In each case, I made note of the filmmakers, and have since been on the lookout for additional work, which I've purchased POD (e.g. Spring, The Sacrament.)

In contrast, which of the also-rans at Sundance am I likely to hear about? How will those films...some of which are no doubt diamonds in the rough...be brought to my attention? That's a huge problem, both for filmmakers and audiences looking for new talent to watch.

It used to be that I could wander through a dozen local video shops, each with their own unique taste in obscure cinema. Netflix and Amazon Prime don't provide anywhere near that level of variety, and neither facilitates discovery.

** I see Bone Tomahawk gets a UK release this month. That film's gained a lot of attention as that other, better Kurt Russel western, and I can't help but wonder if the strong word of mouth wasn't at least partially fueled by the pirate sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grim Fandango said:

I think it's also worth picking up on the language being used here :-

Theft or stealing is a legal term to describe the act of taking something with the intention to deliberately deprive the owner of it.

Piracy in criminal law is the act of violence or depredation on the high seas, in the air for private ends using aircraft or boats.

Piracy in criminal law is also the theft* of intellectual property

*See definition of theft above

Piracy in civil law is the act of distributing intellectual property without permission for personal gain**

** Legal speak for gained liquidisable assets

Filesharing is the act of distributing intellectual property without permission

 

When someone looks up your movie on their favourite piracy website and clicks download, then goes and watches it, they have neither deprived you of your movie, it still exists on your hard drive, so they have stolen nothing from you***, neither have they used a boat or aircraft with violence in the air or on the high seas. Nor have they profited from it. The worst they have done, if we are being correct about what they have actually done is shared your work without your permission - and even then, only if they used a torrent service. There is no criminal or civil issue with someone watching your movie who hasn't paid for it, even public broadcast law allows you to buy a DVD and let your wife watch it.

*** The money they had to pay you to otherwise access the content was never legally yours, so they couldn't have stolen it from you - if you feel like it's a fair argument, then the repercussions of a change in the interpretation of the theft law would extend to shops - I intended to buy that thing she bought, therefore she stole it from me and there would be pandermonium. The best you can do is prove so that a judge is more sure than not in court that the person would have paid for your content, then you can ask the court to order them to pay you that money. This is surprisingly hard, because you will find it very difficult to prove they even watched the film.

I just wanted to make sure people were aware of the correct terminology, because the filesharers are not really the problem, yet they get the blame and all the articles mentioned above talk about pirates, yet then go on to provide numbers for file sharers, I feel like this was what Zak was getting at in his article, the key is indentifying and preventing the pirates, not the filesharers, but he does then talk about number of downloads. As I said above, pirates exist because filesharers needs are not being met legitimately. Give them a path to get your content within their means legitimately and they will, and the pirates will lose their consumers, driving them into their next illigitimate scam.

Online streaming does make people wanna buy DVDs/VOD if the video and sound quality could be better, and also watch it in theatres, if that's an option. 

Incidentally most of the Oscar nominated films have still not made it to Theatres in India. I sympathise with the online streaming guys (since the same films aren't available in any format, for purchase either). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2016 at 1:55 AM, kaylee said:

thank GOD im shooting for the fine art business first and foremost. nothing much has changed there in the last 30 years ?

Edit: i found the article I wanted to share that got me thinking about solutions last year! These guys made a film for 12 000 dollars and marketed it to the dancing niche and made 50 000. There, I have proof finally that it may work:/  https://library.creativecow.net/williams_gex/microbudget_filmmaking_benefits/1

I think you have the answer right there. Creative niche productions. If you thought of a film for the art audience, which you know and understand, and created a fan base (not a large one) - instead of one big film or show that conquers the world, you could service your followers with many low budget productions that you market directly to them. We all know that low budget doesn't need to be crap quality anymore if you chose your talent and locations wisely.

I'm trying to be positive, I know it seems like we are in a dying industry, but why don't we accept video is now a commodity (and not an specialised product) that is trending to free. We can start to try different approaches and reprogram our dreams.

I really think we should look at what people are doing with ebooks, many have made a living. Ebooks are not so easy to sell anymore, but video may be at the stage it was 5 years ago (Circa 50 Shades of Gray was the high point of self publishing I think).

Before you create a film you should already know how you are going to market it yourself. Check out sites like warriorforum, blackhatworld and stacktahtmoney to simply get an idea of how some people are marketing low cost products online in the trenches (ebooks, pinsubmits, game downloads, facebook ads, etc.) which is where we are, and not through traditional channels. I must stress, these guys are selling stuff most would call spam. But a few have managed to make good livings and that is a fact.

I know its so odd for most to look at film without emotion like this, but I really think we need to start adopting these kind of hats if we ever want to make a living selling creative work. Im sure corporte video will remain unchanged, but creative projects are in dire straits.

Even the OPs article says distributors are expecting the filmmaker to market their film. This investor says flat out that the gap between the strategies of filmmaking and internet marketing is a major hindrance to their combined success, because nobody is fully embracing them both at the same time. http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2015/02/08/why-most-online-video-companies-will-fail/

The filmmaker creates a product that is final and cannot be changed and the tech guy is obsessed testing different angles and strategies until they hit ROI. Unfortunately, when a filmmaker tries to create and market their product they cannot adopt that mindset and vice versa.

No one can figure it out and I think we should try.

I have a feeling about this approach, but I may be wrong and wishfully thinking. In that case we are doomed, or im not smart enough to give you a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people tend to compare what's happening with film with music. i think they are 2 different beasts. I am trying to put forward a mature debate, but I am sure there are some that will frown upon it: but I think we should really, dare I say, look to the pornography industry to predict our future distribution models. They rode the wave of piracy and managed to form some sort of general order. I am sure all the top steaming companies and film distribution companies have an employee that follows developments in this industry, or they should. I can almost guarantee VR will be big there first, even if we try to ignore it, and smart money would watch what happens to that industry to see how VR will develop. We forget they were also the first with successful VHS, dvd and streaming distribution models. I watched a documentary by James Franco about Kink.com and they are killing it financially because they focus on one niche. Not a great documentary so I wouldn't recommend it, but it seems the only porn sites that can still command a premium monthly membership are sites that are super focused on a particular demographic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HelsinkiZim said:

Edit: i found the article I wanted to share that got me thinking about solutions last year! These guys made a film for 12 000 dollars and marketed it to the dancing niche and made 50 000. There, I have proof finally that it may work:/  https://library.creativecow.net/williams_gex/microbudget_filmmaking_benefits/1

I think you have the answer right there. Creative niche productions. If you thought of a film for the art audience, which you know and understand, and created a fan base (not a large one) - instead of one big film or show that conquers the world, you could service your followers with many low budget productions that you market directly to them. We all know that low budget doesn't need to be crap quality anymore if you chose your talent and locations wisely.

I'm trying to be positive, I know it seems like we are in a dying industry, but why don't we accept video is now a commodity (and not an specialised product) that is trending to free. We can start to try different approaches and reprogram our dreams.

I really think we should look at what people are doing with ebooks, many have made a living. Ebooks are not so easy to sell anymore, but video may be at the stage it was 5 years ago (Circa 50 Shades of Gray was the high point of self publishing I think).

Before you create a film you should already know how you are going to market it yourself. Check out sites like warriorforum, blackhatworld and stacktahtmoney to simply get an idea of how some people are marketing low cost products online in the trenches (ebooks, pinsubmits, game downloads, facebook ads, etc.) which is where we are, and not through traditional channels. I must stress, these guys are selling stuff most would call spam. But a few have managed to make good livings and that is a fact.

I know its so odd for most to look at film without emotion like this, but I really think we need to start adopting these kind of hats if we ever want to make a living selling creative work. Im sure corporte video will remain unchanged, but creative projects are in dire straits.

Even the OPs article says distributors are expecting the filmmaker to market their film. This investor says flat out that the gap between the strategies of filmmaking and internet marketing is a major hindrance to their combined success, because nobody is fully embracing them both at the same time. http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2015/02/08/why-most-online-video-companies-will-fail/

The filmmaker creates a product that is final and cannot be changed and the tech guy is obsessed testing different angles and strategies until they hit ROI. Unfortunately, when a filmmaker tries to create and market their product they cannot adopt that mindset and vice versa.

No one can figure it out and I think we should try.

I have a feeling about this approach, but I may be wrong and wishfully thinking. In that case we are doomed, or im not smart enough to give you a suggestion.

I never expected to see warriorforum/blackhatworld/stackthatmoney mentioned on EOSHD!! :-o
(I'm on them too...)

But Zim is right. Indie filmmakers could learn a lot from them.

 

ebook publishing is waaaaaaaay harder to make money from than it was merely a few years ago, but perhaps that is indeed the stage Indie Film Self Publishing is at now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HelsinkiZim said:

I think you have the answer right there. Creative niche productions. If you thought of a film for the art audience, which you know and understand, and created a fan base (not a large one) - instead of one big film or show that conquers the world, you could service your followers with many low budget productions that you market directly to them. We all know that low budget doesn't need to be crap quality anymore if you chose your talent and locations wisely.

thank you for your thoughts, thats very insightful commentary, since that is essentially exactly what im doing

my work is kind of like the cremaster cycle, but watchable and entertaining

theres a huge emphasis on important live events that drive my story... and that content will be available online for free

and theres all kinds of stuff in my art practice – from big drawings to sculptures and installations. so in theory one of my shows is gonna have all that stuff. and youre gonna be entertained by some kind of "show"

thats kind of the big idea in the abstract 

6 hours ago, HelsinkiZim said:

I watched a documentary by James Franco about Kink.com and they are killing it financially because they focus on one niche. Not a great documentary so I wouldn't recommend it, but it seems the only porn sites that can still command a premium monthly membership are sites that are super focused on a particular demographic.

if theres one thing that never ceases to amaze me its how endless the audience seems for people willing to PAY for porn

kink.com is an example, and theyre considered p mainstream now, i mean theyre a huge company. my friend just did a scene for them not too long ago and she told me some of their numbers its insane

like, have you ever heard of myfreecams? its a site where you can watch for free or tip the performers

its an option. its the same thing if you watch it for free

however tipping allows you to be interactive and... idk people love it. i know a girl who made like $130k in 3-4 months on that site and selling her own homemade webcam videos through manyvids or a site like that. now mind you she did this by first spending several years amassing a huge audience of 100k+ tumblr followers, giving them FREE content all the time. ...but would people pay for it? especially when it was free the week before? clearly in her case the answer was YES. she paid for 4 years of college in a few months, but it was after years of audience building, and frankly spending a ton of time being interactive with her fans.  it worked like a charm, but shes p smart, thats my point: she planned all this out. thats what we can all learn from. the planning lol

but i digress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...