RE: Nike's involvement

Here's a copy of my response from Katrina's blog:

As long as sponsors don’t touch the film- with the possible exception of presentation credit- I’m all for it… and have been for years. Being a producer and having worked in film fest sponsorship for years I look at it just the same. It’s just basically a “single film, film festival.”

A straight sponsorship has tremendous value for a filmmaker trying to get the film out plus the sponsor doesn’t have to worry about their brand being associated with films that might conflict with their business objectives/brand strategies. Essentially the brand gets to curate their own “single film, film festival” and I imagine that makes the brand managers VERY happy. Plus for the filmmaker NO P&A COSTS to recoup and the power of the brand’s advertising and pr departments. No indie distrib can match that.

Update:

Additionally, it's not like a filmmaker HAS to go with a company he/she can't stomach. The filmmaker should be curatorial too. There are many brands out there with positive attributes- it's just up to the filmmaker to seek them out an convince them (not so easy, believe me I know).

As for "backdoor sponsorship?" How many filmmakers have been to festivals of all sizes and credibility levels only to have a "sponsor" message play before their film? I'm not knocking fest sponsors as they are a vital part of any fest's success, but at least this way the filmmakers have a say in it.

Great post Mark. It's a good time to welcome this kind of dialogue.

A lot of indie filmmakers and industry insiders are very sensitive to the state of distribution right now. It's up to people making and putting out films to adapt to changes in the film landscape. We're all in it to make art and connect with the audiences.

Brands are doing exactly the same thing, they want to make a good product and connect with audiences on an emotional level. And sometimes, like in our case - you have two parties who are trying to interact with the same audience.

It's entirely up to that audience whether they'll like the film or not. And it's up to them to figure out if they like the brand's product or not. No one is being coerced or forced.

The core audience for Beautiful Losers - skaters, designers, artists, graffiti heads, etc - are notoriously independent and difficult for brands to message to. So we're not worried about the idea about corporate sponsorship or idea of "selling out." Our audience is our peers, and we give them enough credit on how they make their decisions when it comes to buying a pair of sneakers.

It doesn't seem to be an easy time for docs to be properly released. Even with NIKE support, Beautiful Losers is only opening in handful of markets. It's not like we have the kind of money to do a "Supersize Me" size release. But if you look at the marketing support that "Supersize Me" had and the lasting cultural impact, I'd say it's money well spent. And we're hoping that it's the same with our film.

The most common emotional response to our film from audiences has been along the lines of "I've got to go make something!" I think that's a rare reaction to a film and we're just trying to connect with more and more people to encourage that Do-it-yourself spirit. It's important in today's world to nurture people to be creative despite everything stacked against you.

So the conversation isn't just about whether corporate sponsorship is good or bad anymore. Considering it's our peers, the kids we grew up in this culture and the kids with street cred, who are now working within the larger corporate machinery with an avid interest in wanting to promote art and culture that are working along with the independents like us... the dialogue can now be "hey, how do we all work together to make really amazing art and connect with audiences without stepping on each other's toes too much?"