Category: New Media

One of the important things I learnt from Distribution U back in October last year was the importance of knowing who your “first audience” is:

“Another primary theme, from both Scott and Peter, is that the distribution for every project will be different, because the primary (or starting) audience will be different and what attracts one audience will not attract another. In modern distribution the “primary” audience for any project is one that is already engaged, in some way, by the topic or content. That helps get word-of-mouth buzz going and the audience can spread. Targeting a specific audience is easier (and cheaper) than trying to build a generic audience.”

Then I come across an IPTV Evangelist post by Levi Shapiro titled “The Only Successful Model for Indie Film,” which naturally caught my attention. While I’m not convinced that there is only one model there are some nice parallels drawn for the modern era of distribution from models of the past: what is the modern equivalent to the ‘Miramax’ model of the 1990’s. Number two on their list for modern distribution is this:

2. Nurture a built-in audience: “The film was supported by the army from the beginning. We asked for their help and advice, they read the script and said, ‘Yes, we want you to make this movie and we will help.’ So they gave us access to a base to shoot, and we had a full-time adviser on the set. So we knew that officially the army as an institution was behind the movie.”

Now I think I’m beginning to see a pattern when along comes an uncredited post on the (highly recommended) Future of Movies blog titled “A Target Audience means a Better Box Office.” This whole post is well worth reading because it really accurately sums up the issue:

Let me repeat that key phrase from the quote: ‘…you have to make the movie for someone. Movies that are for a specific audience tend to overperform.’

After a little slam on “personal movies” (I’m just making it for myself!) the post goes on to note that metaphoric Hollywood makes “movies for everyone.” But it is the answer to the question “Who is your Audience?” that cuts to the heart of the subject:

“If you say everyone, you are either kidding yourself or better have about $300 million to make the next Avatar.

If you say the audience is yourself and forget the audience, you should just stay at home and not waste your investors’ money.

However, if you can create a project that speaks to an audience – a specific, identifiable audience then your story can be focused, your casting choices should make sense, you trailer will talk to that audience, and the film will entertain them and have them sharing and Tweeting and Facebooking and Rotten Tomatoing all over the place.”

All that “tweeting and Facebooking and Rotton Tomatoing” is what independent productions need to grow their audience. This is the crux of social media marketing: give your target audience something they love and they’ll spread the word for you. From among these people will come your fans – those few who actively promote the show.

If you consider some of the more successful independent productions – documentary or not – you can see the wisdom of this approach.

For One Six Right – a documentary about “the passion of aviation” focused on LA’s Van Nuys airport – the target audience is the body of pilots. Pilots have magazines and website dedicated to them making it easy to reach out to the audience.

2004’s Napoleon Dynamite’s target audience – the first people interested in viewing – was clearly people like me: nerds! Yes, it was fortunate and crossed over to the mainstream because the movie was entertaining and the word of mouth spread. But without that first audience tweeting and telling their enjoyment of the movie, who would have been interested in one nerd helping another nerd win Class President?

When Joss Whedon needed a project to fill in time during 2008’s writer’s strike, he pulled together Dr Horrible’s Singalong Blog. While appealing to SciFi fans the “first audience” to get that all-important word-of-mouth going were Joss Whedon, Neil Patrick Harris or Felicia Day fans. OK, we can’t all get that sort of head start, but do note that it wasn’t made “for everyone.” (Joss Whedon’s work is always targeted to specific niches.)

When  Aaron Woolf was looking to promote King Corn (a documentary about how damaging subsidies on corn farming has been) he chose to find their first audience through blogs about sustainable agriculture and slow food movement.

Robert Greenwald ‘s audience came from MoveON.org where he was an in-house filmmaker.

And so it goes. By focusing on a target audience – a niche if you will – the marketing becomes clearer and more focused. By saying “no” to the rest and targeting and appealing to the target audience, how you reach the audience becomes clearer and more practical.

When we were creating the Intelligent Assistants for various post-production software programs, I had a very clear audience in mind. In fact, I could probably name the half dozen or so people that I was writing for. They never knew it, but it was easier for me to write something that really met the needs of those people than something aimed at “everyone” using Final Cut Pro or Boris RED, et al.

During the years I was programming the Digital Production BuZZ I again had a very specific group of people that I was programming for. It was clear in my mind who I was not programming for. That made it much easier to determine who would be an appropriate guest for that audience, keeping it relevant and focused for those few and contributing, I believe, to its rapid growth.

You can never make an audience for “everyone”. The market for Predator has very little overlap with Princess Bride! To some degree Hollywood has semi-targeted specific demographics. But demographics aren’t people.

When you talk with me about promoting your independent project (as I will be in New York on March 20th and Boston on March 23rd) expect to be challenged with the question “who’s your target audience?” to clarify any questions. If you can’t define your target audience – the first you’ll promote to – you should stop everything and refine the project until it perfectly meets the expectations of a single, first, starting audience.

Then you can start production.

A couple of days ago I talked about why a “three strikes” law is such a bad idea. It’s also a bad idea because it’s pointless and bad for the content creators and/or owners’ businesses.

On the other hand, even the threat of a three strikes law in France (ultimately struck down by their highest court as against human rights) immediately created a business opportunity for encrypted Virtual Private Networks (VPN). Not only that, but the Pirate Bay folks are also setting up an inexpensive VPN service for anyone that wants it. These services disguise the IP address of the downloader, so even if copyright owners tried to get an IP address to sue (not that you can sue an IP address, as many have found out in non-US jurisdictions) everyone using the service has the same IP address, not correlateable to any individual location. 

If that should ever become “broken” as a workaround, something else will be found. In fact there’s a move afoot to update the bittorrent protocol to a new form that resists seeders being identified.

It’s a pointless exercise. Whatever horse there was has long bolted the stable and the only reasonable response from an intelligent business person is to find new business models. Andy Kessler, writing at Forbes.com, discusses The Inevitability of Internet Pirates: 

Hand out as many guilty verdicts as you like, but folks on the Internet will copy away–because, really, who can stop them? Google won’t do it, Internet providers like Comcast ( CMCSA –news - people ) and AT&T ( T - news - people ), who can block a lot of this stuff, can’t do it without Network Neutrality proponents squawking, “Interference!”

Even authoritarian regimes fail. (The Great Firewall of China is quite leaky.) Plus, it is so easy to create a Web service to download copyrighted material that, like that arcade game Whac-A-Mole, if you take one culprit down with your mallet another five pop up in the next few nanoseconds. Sad but true, there is not much anyone can do.

Blocking sites does not work because it’s relatively trivial to find a proxy server to log into the “blocked site”. DRM has been an abject failure inconveniencing those who actually paid for the product without doing anything to reduce “piracy”. 

Piracy is such a daft word for infringement – a civil or business problem, not a criminal one. With theft of property, the original owner is deprived of ownership because the thief has taken it. Not so with a digital copy where millions can be produced without anyone being deprived of anything (other than potential, not actual, income). The copyright industry likes to use the word “theft” or “stealing” but it’s disingenuous at best and an outright lie in all likelihood. (As are the outrageous guesses at “losses” that make the ridiculous assumption that every download is a lost sale at a premium price, none of which is supportable by fact.)

Not only is it inevitable, but it’s not in the best interests of the content industry. As I’ve noted before, those who do pirate music are also the music industry’s best customers. Apparently the pirating is a way of testing new music that otherwise would never have been heard, appreciated and ultimately purchased. 

Not only that but a new Harvard study shows clearly that it’s in societies best interests to have weak copyright. Remembering that the writers of the Constitution of the USA reluctantly granted “limited” exclusive copyright in return for encouraging creative work.

Copyright law was never meant to protect the music business in the first place—instead, it’s intended to foster creative production in the arts. It seems that goal is fostered by weak copyright and file sharing. 

The idiot copyright industry keeps saying that nothing would be created without ever stronger, and longer, copyright. This is another lie that bears no relationship with any fact or research, but that doesn’t stop the IRAA and MPAA making the claim. (Heck, they simply change their story to suit whatever action they’re currently taking to prop up outdated business models – every action that is, except updating their business models.)

The Harvard Study, analyzed by Michael Geist (the original is a pdf and harder to link to or quote) has found that file sharing has significantly increased cultural production. 

The paper takes on several longstanding myths about the economic effects of file sharing, noting that many downloaded songs do not represent a lost sale, some mashups may increase the market for the original work, and the entertainment industry can still steer consumer attention to particular artists (which results in more sales and downloads).

And this:

The authors’ point out that file sharing may not result in reduced incentives to create if the willingness to pay for “complements” increases.  They point to rising income from performances or author speaking tours as obvious examples of income that may be enhanced through file sharing. In particular, they focus on a study that concluded that demands for concerts increased due to file sharing and that concert prices have steadily risen during the file sharing era.  Moreover, the authors’ canvass the literature on the effects of file sharing on music sales, confirming that the “results are decidedly mixed.” 

It’s time the MPAA, RIAA and their international associates, who do NOT really represent artists, simply realized they were flogging a dead horse and the only chance they have for a future is to adapt. Ever more draconian laws that turn almost every citizen into a civil offender (or worse a criminal) is not only stupid, it’s not in the best interests of those who create the content. Something many musicians have realized already.

Any chance of at least one politician understanding the argument? I didn’t think so.

The article “Original Web Video Still A Bust” by Dan Fromer really made me smile. Web video – not year five years old – has not yet replaced programming from the major networks and studios. Who’d have thought!

It’s not like the early days of cable. Where articles written “Original Cable programming still a bust” in the mid 70’s and the very early days of Community Antenna/Access TV, the precursor to modern cable. It took more than 20 years of cable, and more than 10 years of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is when modern cable really started to take off before we got Mad Men or Breaking Bad or any of the current crop of high quality drama and comedy now available on cable. 

We are much further advanced with Internet TV than we were at an equivalent stage of development for cable. Product equipment is much cheaper and much more accessible compared to limited access to a studio provided by the cable network as a condition of their franchise on a city. One studio that was a limited asset. Nowdays, pretty much anyone with an idea can create it. I’ve interviewed guests who made movies for under $500. Matthew Winer (in the Spring edition of Produced by magazine from the Producer’s Guild) says that he made his first film for $20,000.

But like cable the growth to quality programming will be slow and gradual. It won’t take 10 or 20 years but I do expect that it will be five to ten years before we get million dollar budget for programs specifically for Internet distribution. The numbers do add up if the distribution channels are handled right. (Hint: it won’t be advertising supporting it this time round, at least not in the annoying intrusive formats we’ve seen on television.)

So, it’s a little premature to say that original web video is a “bust” just yet. Get back to me in 2020 and I’ll be very surprised if we don’t have a vibrant new media creating great drama, comedy and other formats we haven’t seen yet for Internet distribution that is viewed primarily on TV screens (however the big set in the corner evolves).