Showing posts with label Scott Kirsner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scott Kirsner. Show all posts
Monday, October 15, 2007
Digital Distribution and Marketing
Scott Kirsner of the Cinematech blog hosted a workshop at the Film Arts Foundation in San Francisco on the subject of Digital Distribution and Marketing. Below is a slide show of Kirsner's presentation, including some dollar figures.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Added Links
In addition to adding a link for Peter Emslie on the right, I've added some other new links.
Will Finn is an animator, story artist and director of features. Besides his own work, his blog is printing a lot of great artwork by the little known Henry Syverson, whose work is simple, though incredibly lively. Recent posts also include work by Walt Kelly, another personal favourite, and a letter by Ward Kimball that I've already linked to.
Scott Kirsner's Cinematech blog is essential reading for anyone with an interest in the changing media landscape. Kirsner is independent-friendly, so he's constantly spotlighting new sites and approaches that offer opportunities for individual film makers.
Many people who write about computer animation get hung up on technique. They're so involved in explaining how an effect is accomplished, they don't stop to consider the value of what's on the screen. Keith Lango loves the nitty gritty tech discussions, but never loses sight of larger issues like content and acting. He's worked at a variety of studios and with a variety of budgets, so he's got a wider ranging viewpoint than many in the industry. I consider him one of the most perceptive writers among animation professionals.
Will Finn is an animator, story artist and director of features. Besides his own work, his blog is printing a lot of great artwork by the little known Henry Syverson, whose work is simple, though incredibly lively. Recent posts also include work by Walt Kelly, another personal favourite, and a letter by Ward Kimball that I've already linked to.
Scott Kirsner's Cinematech blog is essential reading for anyone with an interest in the changing media landscape. Kirsner is independent-friendly, so he's constantly spotlighting new sites and approaches that offer opportunities for individual film makers.
Many people who write about computer animation get hung up on technique. They're so involved in explaining how an effect is accomplished, they don't stop to consider the value of what's on the screen. Keith Lango loves the nitty gritty tech discussions, but never loses sight of larger issues like content and acting. He's worked at a variety of studios and with a variety of budgets, so he's got a wider ranging viewpoint than many in the industry. I consider him one of the most perceptive writers among animation professionals.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Independent Distribution and Marketing
These two video clips are of Scott Kirsner interviewing Peter Broderick of Paradigm Consulting. The first runs 15 minutes and the second almost 9, but they're full of interesting information about financing, revenue streams, distribution and marketing. Broderick talks about documentaries, which are different than animation in that they automatically have more footage and most likely a lower budget, but his thoughts still point the way the market is evolving and suggest possibilities.
If you can spare the time, these clips are worth watching. If you haven't got the time, bookmark Broderick's site for future reference.
If you can spare the time, these clips are worth watching. If you haven't got the time, bookmark Broderick's site for future reference.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The Betamax Wars Continue
Once upon a time, Sony invented the home video recorder - the Betamax - and Hollywood studios launched law suits in an attempt to kill it. The studios lost the fight and it turned out to be the best thing that ever happened to them. The VCR was a success because it gave consumers more power to control when they watched entertainment. The studios benefited because the equipment allowed for the release of pre-recorded cassettes and eventually DVDs. The home video market today is responsible for a large portion of Hollywood's revenues.
Later this month, RealPlayer will release version 11, which will include the ability to grab video from the web and save it or copy it to other devices. RealPlayer argues that their new release is no different than a VCR or PVR. Hollywood, which never learns from the past and thinks there's a future in alienating consumers, will possibly sue RealPlayer.
You can read details in this Variety article by Scott Kirsner.
Later this month, RealPlayer will release version 11, which will include the ability to grab video from the web and save it or copy it to other devices. RealPlayer argues that their new release is no different than a VCR or PVR. Hollywood, which never learns from the past and thinks there's a future in alienating consumers, will possibly sue RealPlayer.
You can read details in this Variety article by Scott Kirsner.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Digital Distribution: Movies and Music
Scott Kirsner has contributed an article to Release Print about the state of digital distribution for movies. He admits that
The New York Times Magazine has an article called "Sex, Drugs and Updating Your Blog," which talks about how musicians are using digital distribution to build audiences.
Both these articles deal with creative people attempting to cut out the middle men and go straight to audiences and I'm intrigued with the differences between the two fields. Music has the advantage of being produced faster and cheaper than films, which allow musicians to regularly add new material and build an audience. Musicians are also interacting more heavily with their audiences than filmmakers are. The Times article talks about Jonathan Coulton, who has uploaded a new song weekly and personally answers dozens of emails a day from fans. John K. has developed quite a following through his blog, but based on the posted comments, he's not committed to answering every question that comes his way. If you're aware of anyone in animation or film who has taken this further than John K, let me know.
One of the major differences between music and film is the personal appearance angle. Concerts and club dates are a major revenue stream for musicians, where personal appearances by actors or directors might goose attendance at a screening but don't generate revenue separately the way music sales and personal appearances do.
Finally, there are the physiological and psychological differences between music and film. Sight is our specie's primary sense, so we're able to use our hearing while engaging in other activities. Music can accompany our activities in a way that films never can. A teacher of mine, Bob Edmonds, once said that there was no visual equivalent to whistling.
Furthermore, there's an emotional difference between music and film. A lot of animation is based on humour, but a joke won't be as funny the 20th time you hear it as it was the first time. By contrast, the 20th time you hear a song, it may be more satisfying than the first. Music grows on us while humour, stories and films tend to go stale.
I'm fascinated with how all of this is developing. I desperately hope that animators figure out a way to make the web work for independent production. The goal shouldn't be to become the next George Lucas and get rich. The goal should be to do the work you want to do and make enough money from it to live. Coulton, the musician, is making a middle class living. Can animators do the same? Maybe the web will never be as friendly to animators as it is to musicians, but the rules are still being written and there's enormous potential to change how animators live and work for the better.
Digital distribution, circa 2007, resembles a high-concept science fiction script: conceptually intriguing, potentially feasible, but not quite part of the fabric of reality.
The New York Times Magazine has an article called "Sex, Drugs and Updating Your Blog," which talks about how musicians are using digital distribution to build audiences.
Both these articles deal with creative people attempting to cut out the middle men and go straight to audiences and I'm intrigued with the differences between the two fields. Music has the advantage of being produced faster and cheaper than films, which allow musicians to regularly add new material and build an audience. Musicians are also interacting more heavily with their audiences than filmmakers are. The Times article talks about Jonathan Coulton, who has uploaded a new song weekly and personally answers dozens of emails a day from fans. John K. has developed quite a following through his blog, but based on the posted comments, he's not committed to answering every question that comes his way. If you're aware of anyone in animation or film who has taken this further than John K, let me know.
One of the major differences between music and film is the personal appearance angle. Concerts and club dates are a major revenue stream for musicians, where personal appearances by actors or directors might goose attendance at a screening but don't generate revenue separately the way music sales and personal appearances do.
Finally, there are the physiological and psychological differences between music and film. Sight is our specie's primary sense, so we're able to use our hearing while engaging in other activities. Music can accompany our activities in a way that films never can. A teacher of mine, Bob Edmonds, once said that there was no visual equivalent to whistling.
Furthermore, there's an emotional difference between music and film. A lot of animation is based on humour, but a joke won't be as funny the 20th time you hear it as it was the first time. By contrast, the 20th time you hear a song, it may be more satisfying than the first. Music grows on us while humour, stories and films tend to go stale.
I'm fascinated with how all of this is developing. I desperately hope that animators figure out a way to make the web work for independent production. The goal shouldn't be to become the next George Lucas and get rich. The goal should be to do the work you want to do and make enough money from it to live. Coulton, the musician, is making a middle class living. Can animators do the same? Maybe the web will never be as friendly to animators as it is to musicians, but the rules are still being written and there's enormous potential to change how animators live and work for the better.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Filters
Here's a study in contrasts. First, TV comedy writer Ken Levine, who has written with partner David Isaacs for The Simpsons, Frasier, Everybody Loves Raymond and M*A*S*H, talks about his experience with focus groups.
Then we've got Scott Kirsner writing about OurStage.com. It's a website similar to American Idol, where thousands of people vote for their favorite bands and web videos and the winners are awarded prizes. (You can check out the animation winner for March here.)
Each one of these is a filter, a way of trying to pick winners out of a crowd. In the first case, the crowd consists of commissioned TV pilots and in the second, user-generated music and video. But both are attempting to use the audience to determine what's going to be successful. The focus group is small and supposed to be representative of the larger audience, but we know from watching TV that it has a high failure rate. The second case uses the entire audience as the focal group but it only gets to judge user-financed content.
The logical question is why aren't these two procedures merged? TV networks are hampered by the small sample sizes they use for testing. OurStage is hampered by the budgets and talents of self-selecting contributors. If TV networks put all their pilots online and asked viewers to vote on which ones should go into production, we couldn't do any worse than we're doing now.
OurStage is promising recording studio time and film festival entry to its winners, which means that eventually the prize money will allow popular contributors to work with larger budgets. Once OurStage can finance work based on proven popularity, the contributors will have the wherewithal to do better work.
Whoever is first to finance work based on audience popularity without the bottleneck of gatekeepers is going to leave everyone in the dust. Let the audience decide and direct the money to audience favourites.
Then we've got Scott Kirsner writing about OurStage.com. It's a website similar to American Idol, where thousands of people vote for their favorite bands and web videos and the winners are awarded prizes. (You can check out the animation winner for March here.)
Each one of these is a filter, a way of trying to pick winners out of a crowd. In the first case, the crowd consists of commissioned TV pilots and in the second, user-generated music and video. But both are attempting to use the audience to determine what's going to be successful. The focus group is small and supposed to be representative of the larger audience, but we know from watching TV that it has a high failure rate. The second case uses the entire audience as the focal group but it only gets to judge user-financed content.
The logical question is why aren't these two procedures merged? TV networks are hampered by the small sample sizes they use for testing. OurStage is hampered by the budgets and talents of self-selecting contributors. If TV networks put all their pilots online and asked viewers to vote on which ones should go into production, we couldn't do any worse than we're doing now.
OurStage is promising recording studio time and film festival entry to its winners, which means that eventually the prize money will allow popular contributors to work with larger budgets. Once OurStage can finance work based on proven popularity, the contributors will have the wherewithal to do better work.
Whoever is first to finance work based on audience popularity without the bottleneck of gatekeepers is going to leave everyone in the dust. Let the audience decide and direct the money to audience favourites.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Writers, Gatekeepers and Distribution
This will probably be the last post for about a week due to several competing obligations. However, there are some things I'd like to point out that are worth reading.
Evan Gore left a comment on my entry on character sympathy that led me to the Animation Writer's Blog which he contributes to. You're undoubtedly aware of John K's stance on animation writers and this blog represents the response of some writers.
That blog led me to nichollsvickers.com, the site of writers Andrew Nicholls and Darryl Vickers, who have written for live action and animated TV. There are two things there very much worth reading about the interference that TV writers regularly suffer from those above them in the hierarchy. The short article (a downloadable pdf file) is "The Nevermending Story." The other piece is a 288 page book (also a downloadable pdf) called Valuable Lessons, chronicling their careers and which unfortunately degenerates into a torrent of stupidities that have rained down on their heads. These writers are obviously far better than the work that they're allowed to do and while my experience in TV is tiny compared to theirs, what happened to them rings true to me.
Finally, the ever-useful Scott Kirsner points to this article in Variety about a feature producer working to distribute purely through the internet. There's no question that it isn't a mature distribution medium yet, but the existing alternative is hardly an alternative at all.
Now, distribution is essentially free. Every blog, webpage or posted video has a potential audience of billions of people. The new problems are financing your work and figuring out ways to earn money from it. People in media like prose and comics have it fairly easy, in that they can create for pennies. Animation takes more time and effort than other media, which means more of an up front investment and somebody's got to pay the bills while the work is being created.
On the income side, once again other media have it easier than animation. Musicians have figured out that if they give away their music online, they can still make money from concert appearances and merchandising. Unfortunately, nobody's lining up for tickets to see animators talk about their work, so giving away your animation isn't viable.
Charging for downloads seems to be the best possibility at the moment (though merchandising is viable depending on the property).
The point is, given the long odds of getting a gatekeeper to take your project, given the stupidity that gatekeepers inflict on creative people, and given how questionable the accounting practices of the entertainment business are, I don't feel the old system is worth pursuing. Feel free to disagree. While the internet isn't a mature business model yet, this is one case where I think it's better to go with the devil you don't know than the devil you do.
Evan Gore left a comment on my entry on character sympathy that led me to the Animation Writer's Blog which he contributes to. You're undoubtedly aware of John K's stance on animation writers and this blog represents the response of some writers.
That blog led me to nichollsvickers.com, the site of writers Andrew Nicholls and Darryl Vickers, who have written for live action and animated TV. There are two things there very much worth reading about the interference that TV writers regularly suffer from those above them in the hierarchy. The short article (a downloadable pdf file) is "The Nevermending Story." The other piece is a 288 page book (also a downloadable pdf) called Valuable Lessons, chronicling their careers and which unfortunately degenerates into a torrent of stupidities that have rained down on their heads. These writers are obviously far better than the work that they're allowed to do and while my experience in TV is tiny compared to theirs, what happened to them rings true to me.
Finally, the ever-useful Scott Kirsner points to this article in Variety about a feature producer working to distribute purely through the internet. There's no question that it isn't a mature distribution medium yet, but the existing alternative is hardly an alternative at all.
"We knew we didn't have the quality to stand up to a theatrical release," Nelson says. "But we got five offers from DVD distributors." Nelson, however, was shocked by the deal terms, which were typical: No advance without a star or a decent budget. No piece of the backend. The distributor hangs on to its rights for seven to 10 years. And when they sell the DVD on the Internet via Amazon or Netflix, the distrib takes 25% of the gross and subtracts all expenses, including replicating and supplying DVDs and marketing. (Netflix won't take any films without a distributor.)I keep saying this and you're probably sick of reading it. Under the old system, before the internet, distribution was scarce. This led to gatekeepers who sifted through thousands of potential projects and picked the ones that they thought would sell. Inevitably, they picked material that had already sold or resembled material that had already sold. The good thing about this system was that the gatekeepers had money, so if you were picked, you were financed. The bad thing about this system is that they controlled content, so they could warp your project into whatever they thought the market wanted.
Nelson was amazed, too, by the distributors' lack of accountability. "They send quarterly reports by country," she says, "But they don't tell you how many units they sold. They don't keep track by film. They don't have systems or bookkeeping capabilities. There's no such thing as making money. What you get upfront is what you are going to see."
Now, distribution is essentially free. Every blog, webpage or posted video has a potential audience of billions of people. The new problems are financing your work and figuring out ways to earn money from it. People in media like prose and comics have it fairly easy, in that they can create for pennies. Animation takes more time and effort than other media, which means more of an up front investment and somebody's got to pay the bills while the work is being created.
On the income side, once again other media have it easier than animation. Musicians have figured out that if they give away their music online, they can still make money from concert appearances and merchandising. Unfortunately, nobody's lining up for tickets to see animators talk about their work, so giving away your animation isn't viable.
Charging for downloads seems to be the best possibility at the moment (though merchandising is viable depending on the property).
The point is, given the long odds of getting a gatekeeper to take your project, given the stupidity that gatekeepers inflict on creative people, and given how questionable the accounting practices of the entertainment business are, I don't feel the old system is worth pursuing. Feel free to disagree. While the internet isn't a mature business model yet, this is one case where I think it's better to go with the devil you don't know than the devil you do.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Movie Downloads
Scott Kirsner has a list and ratings of the various movie download services. This is an immature market so far, but I believe that it's going to become the dominant way that we watch films at home.
Note which services are friendly to independents. It's a given that mainstream Hollywood films will be available. What's important is whether in the long tail world of the net there will be places for other points of view. I think that's animation's best hope for offering a wider range of content to audiences.
Note which services are friendly to independents. It's a given that mainstream Hollywood films will be available. What's important is whether in the long tail world of the net there will be places for other points of view. I think that's animation's best hope for offering a wider range of content to audiences.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Clash of the Morons
Viacom is suing YouTube for $1 billion dollars for copyright infringement. This lawsuit demonstrates stupidity on both sides.
YouTube is not funneling any of the revenue it makes back to the people posting videos or the copyright holders. Many other video sites already have functioning payment plans. Scott Kirsner has put together a list available here. It's not like YouTube has to invent things from scratch. They can easily see what's available in the marketplace and craft a plan based on what others have done.
Viacom is trying to hold back the future. The Hollywood studios tried to strangle TV and home video in the cradle. Not only did they fail, they soon turned around and embraced both of them as major revenue streams.
And Viacom is hurting itself. With no Viacom content on YouTube, people watching online video will be satisfied to watch somebody else's content. What kind of business model withholds a product from customers and encourages them to move to the competition?
I support the idea of copyright. I believe that a creator (or the company that finances a creator) has the right to profit from work. No argument there. However, I see copyright in different terms than it currently exists.
In a digital world, you cannot control copying. Why devote time and money to fighting it? Better to acknowledge that copying will occur and figure out a system where every time content is copied or viewed, the copyright holder makes money. That way, rather than fight copying you can encourage it and profit from it at the same time.
The only way to protect a secret is to not tell anyone. Once one other person knows it, you've lost control of the content. You cannot guarantee that the other person won't spread the information around. That's how it is now with digital copying. Once you've made your work available to the public, you cannot stop it from spreading around. You can copy a file with as little effort as whispering to a friend. When the cost to reproduce something is that low, there's no effective barrier to prevent it.
It's not going to be easy to set up a compensation system and I suspect that initially there's going to be disappointment over the amount of money that digital copying generates. Rather than these two giant companies wasting resources fighting over an antiquated law, they should be lobbying the government to adapt the copyright law to unlimited copying for the digital age.
Just like the studios eventually made peace with TV and the VCR, they're going to make peace with online video. Even a moron can see that. Why not skip the lawsuits and just get on with it?
YouTube is not funneling any of the revenue it makes back to the people posting videos or the copyright holders. Many other video sites already have functioning payment plans. Scott Kirsner has put together a list available here. It's not like YouTube has to invent things from scratch. They can easily see what's available in the marketplace and craft a plan based on what others have done.
Viacom is trying to hold back the future. The Hollywood studios tried to strangle TV and home video in the cradle. Not only did they fail, they soon turned around and embraced both of them as major revenue streams.
And Viacom is hurting itself. With no Viacom content on YouTube, people watching online video will be satisfied to watch somebody else's content. What kind of business model withholds a product from customers and encourages them to move to the competition?
I support the idea of copyright. I believe that a creator (or the company that finances a creator) has the right to profit from work. No argument there. However, I see copyright in different terms than it currently exists.
In a digital world, you cannot control copying. Why devote time and money to fighting it? Better to acknowledge that copying will occur and figure out a system where every time content is copied or viewed, the copyright holder makes money. That way, rather than fight copying you can encourage it and profit from it at the same time.
The only way to protect a secret is to not tell anyone. Once one other person knows it, you've lost control of the content. You cannot guarantee that the other person won't spread the information around. That's how it is now with digital copying. Once you've made your work available to the public, you cannot stop it from spreading around. You can copy a file with as little effort as whispering to a friend. When the cost to reproduce something is that low, there's no effective barrier to prevent it.
It's not going to be easy to set up a compensation system and I suspect that initially there's going to be disappointment over the amount of money that digital copying generates. Rather than these two giant companies wasting resources fighting over an antiquated law, they should be lobbying the government to adapt the copyright law to unlimited copying for the digital age.
Just like the studios eventually made peace with TV and the VCR, they're going to make peace with online video. Even a moron can see that. Why not skip the lawsuits and just get on with it?
Monday, March 12, 2007
Marketing Tips
Scott Kirsner has a list of marketing tips that have come up at the South By Southwest Film Festival that are worth reading.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
ToonBreak
Scott Kirsner has an article about ToonBreak, a new video website that's set up to feature animation and share revenue with contributors. This is a long tail type of aggregation, where Shawn McInerny is attempting to create a destination for people seeking out animation. Individual contributors may not experience financial success, but the site is non-exclusive. If you've got a film, you've got nothing to lose by posting there. Should the site be successful, the entire animation community would benefit from a high traffic location that shares revenue.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Money From Web Video
Scott Kirsner, the author of the Cinematech blog, has an article in the N.Y. Times about people who have been earning money from the videos they upload to various websites. This link will take you to a Cinematech entry that links to Kirsner's chart of video sites that pay for content and his book The Future of Web Video.
There's been discussion on other sites about an animation studio running a contest where they invite content submissions and keep the rights to all entries. Anyone producing content right now is foolish not to place it with one of these video sites. You maintain full ownership of your work. You have the potential to see some cash from it. Best of all, if your work proves popular with an audience, you may attract industry interest and you are negotiating from a position of strength.
The big players in film and TV are not looking for creative properties, they're looking for an audience. They're stuck having to guess what creative properties will attract that audience. If you can attract your own audience, you've beaten the system.
There's been discussion on other sites about an animation studio running a contest where they invite content submissions and keep the rights to all entries. Anyone producing content right now is foolish not to place it with one of these video sites. You maintain full ownership of your work. You have the potential to see some cash from it. Best of all, if your work proves popular with an audience, you may attract industry interest and you are negotiating from a position of strength.
The big players in film and TV are not looking for creative properties, they're looking for an audience. They're stuck having to guess what creative properties will attract that audience. If you can attract your own audience, you've beaten the system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
