docsiderindieWIRE:SnagFilms
Docsider








infinicine Interview: D-Word's Doug Block

[Mark Rabinowitz] Keeping on the theme of the ever changing word of distribution (are we ever not on that theme around here?) I figure I should point out a new site that recently launched called infinicine (clever name, no? And no, it's not pronounced "infini-scene.") and their latest post is an interview with D-Word founder and filmmaker Doug Block. Doug's a smart guy and has been at this streaming/day-and-date doc thing for longer than many of you have been the doc addicts I know you are and he has definite thoughts on some of the new models being tried out, to wit:

"Is having a 50/50 split of advertising revenue a good deal? It sounds like one, but there's no way of telling in advance how much advertising your film will generate and how much revenue that will ultimately bring in. And I don't see any companies offering sizable minimum guarantees in the way that theatrical distributors often do."

First of all, I'd argue that a 50-50 split is a pretty fantastic deal. It's more akin to the deals made for docs in the educational distribution market back in the 80's. Of course there's no way of telling what kind of money will be there in advance, but then again, the company is presumably in the business of making money and if they make money, the filmmaker makes money. As for the "sizable minimum guarantees" bit, I beg to differ. I can't imagine that more than .5% of released docs get any kind of serious cash up front.

That said, he's dead right that downloading of features is in its infancy and retaining your download rights is of paramount importance. There's potentially much more money to be made down the road by filmmakers who've retained their digital rights.

[Begin self-serving but important information section here] Two of the companies currently involved in online delivery of docs, SnagFilms and CINELAN (both of whom I work for) do not require the rights to films they distribute, they only license them for online distribution. [End of Begin self-serving but important information.]

Block ends the interview with: "In the end, the truly committed filmmaker will always find a way to make his or her film. This is a funny business. You need to be aware of everything that's going on, but you kind of need to have blinders on, as well." I'd add that they need to be a little crazy too, but maybe that's just me.



Comments

50/50 of nothing is still nothing.

(and it isn't so that there are not costs that will deducted, and we don't know, do we? what the ratio of those costs to income will be. do we?)

anyway, are doc filmmakers now supposed to make films based on (or worrying about) how good or well-suited an advertising environment their films will provide? I suppose many already do. But still ...


Well, I can only speak for Cinelan (I put on my Cinelan hat) but we've been known to offer a minimum guarantee of $2500 which is pretty good for a 3 minute film.

As or advertising, I am not sure what you mean by "how good or well-suited an advertising environment their films will provide." What does this mean? What does advertising have to do with it?


$2500 advance for a 3' film sounds great to me - but that is not about a 50/50 split of an unknown amount off advertising revenue the quote refers to - "Of course there's no way of telling what kind of money will be there in advance"

as for an ad environment - if the revenue are to come from someone selling advertising, won't the films that are a more desirable context for the ads (the products being sold) sell more ads and make more money than the ones that aren't?


As for the 50/50 split, what difference does it really make if it's unknown? It's not like there's a risk. Besides, most revenue deals are unknown. Excepting a few studio blockbusters and the even more rare person who gets gross points, no one knows what they're getting from distribution beyond an advance/purchase fee.

Again, only speaking for Cinelan, advertising revenue is only part of our business model and the split refers to all monies brought in by each film, including sponsored theatrical releases, TV buys and mobile device deals.

As for the ads, no, as far as we are concerned, the ads have nothing to do with the content. The content is tied to editorial on our various partners. For example, if the Telegraph runs a story about the homeless then they embed our film about the same topic and we get a share of the ad revenue on that page of the Telegraph's site.


Mark, I never officially thanked you for the props! I hope to offer more info on digital distribution in the future.



Trackback (ping URL)


Post a Comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Name
Email
URL
Comments
(HTML allowed)


Remember personal info?