“Distribution as a Service” (DaaS) may just be the ticket the filmmaker side our industry needs to get back on its feet. I am confident DaaS could expand opportunity for a much wider range of cinemakers and communities while helping restore the principle of compensating people fairly for their work, risk, and investment.
As sweet as that is, the benefits won’t end there either. DaaS could also free us significantly from the trap of the dull offerings the few remaining corporate suppliers and platforms provide. It is already a strong alternative to traditional distribution, and often a preferable method of release for many nonfiction films, authored cinema, non-English-language cinema in America, NonDē, and social-impact filmmaking. Most importantly though, Daas will put artists’ rights —particularly rights retention — at the center of our decision-making, which is where they belong.
I believe this because I have seen it work. When Vanessa and I began contemplating how to distribute Invisible Nation, we knew we were pushing against market realities. We recognized that the Global Streaming Platforms (GSPs) were unlikely to touch a “political” film willing to speak truth to power, particularly when that power emanated from one of the largest markets in the world: China. And with so many US theatrical distributors dependent on the prospect of a PayOne Streaming Platform license, films without that possibility face an extraordinarily difficult acquisition market. If that wasn’t bad enough, in this era of shareholder capitalism, what BoD would risk being eventually denied access to a large market, and as a result there are film subjects that they won’t ever acquire. Pretend that is just “business doing business” all you want, but it is stifling free expression. We knew Invisible Nation was one of those films with little chance for those licensing “opportunities”, and then some.
Think about what that means for any film. A movie may have an audience, several even, but no established path to reach it. It could even identify a community that cares deeply about its subject, along with a hot button reason it needs to exist (like say… to protect the lives of 24 million people), yet still be considered undesirable because it doesn’t fit the acquisition priorities of our few global platforms. This is the world we are in. Are you just going to let the brutes be brutes, or are you going to find a new way? Stop dreaming that there should be a company that pays you to license your film. Take responsibility for your work.
DaaS offers an alternative method to reach those audiences while allowing the artists to retain the rights that might allow the film to keep generating value over time.
The distribution companies’ acquisition strategies aren’t necessarily determined by what audiences want to see, let alone what our communities crave. They are shaped by the significant ramifications of media consolidation, unfair competition, and business incentives that reinforce the agendas of the most powerful while also devaluing the cultural diversity and independent expression a healthy democracy depends on. And we just shrug, and say “but what’s the alternative, Ted?”.
Regulation— and perhaps a fair and equitable contemporary version of the old Financial Interest and Syndication (FinSyn) rules, adapted to the GSPs—could address some of these problems, provided they provided for more than the most powerful. But innovation, new business practices and value-based investment could also begin addressing the problems of distribution right now. Particularly so if a vibrant democracy and robust cultural offerings matter to you. Please tell me they do. And then prove it by your actions too.
Longtime HFF readers may remember one of what I call The Secret Formulas. A favorite of mine is how in any relatively closed ecosystem, when the dominant powers, capital providers, or consumers decide that what exists is “good enough,” the incentive to invest in operational improvements begins to disappear. Why spend money improving a product or process when the existing arrangement already delivers acceptable returns? The opportunity cost of even basic improvements appears too great, let alone innovation. Capital goes elsewhere, and the system gradually loses the ability—or even the desire—to improve.
Over time, this neglect becomes normal. Infrastructure deteriorates. Practices become obsolete. Opportunities disappear. The people controlling the system may continue doing reasonably well, even as the ecosystem supporting everyone else grows weaker. That’s the now we find ourselves in. Some present.
Welcome to the suck of today, friends. Forty years of SC-Indie Film and the larger film business have left us with plenty of neglect, rust, and decay.
But it is not all bad. There’s plenty good I don’t want us to forget: many of the old ways actually worked, and worked well. The system was never fair to everyone, but it offered more opportunities for people to share in a film’s success than today’s does. Territorial licensing, performance bonuses, and continued exploitation of rights created incentives to invest in the next film. We lost much of that. DaaS could help restore those incentives while allowing us to build something more accessible than the old system ever was.
IF YOU TALK THE TALK, YOU HAVE TO WALK THE WALK
I am not someone who recommends action that I am unwilling to undertake myself. Artists and audiences are being denied options and culture they deserve, and I don’t think we should accept that as inevitable. I’ve been in this industry for over four decades and recognize that I have privileges many do not. I felt more able to take this risk than others might. We did it. On Invisible Nation, we assembled a solid team to release our film and frequently had to pay for their services, but quite happily too.
We focused Phase One of our campaign around building community around the film—or, more precisely, learning how the existing community could best use our film. We weren’t trying to invent an audience from scratch. There were people and organizations already deeply engaged with the issues the film explored. We wanted to understand how the film could serve their work, and how we might work together to bring it to more people. Ultimately, that community came together and funded oir full release campaign.
I recommend many of the individuals, vendors, and platforms we used. The experience also helped further convince me that the way most of us have been thinking about distribution is just plain wrong.
WHY MUST WE SURRENDER OUR FILMS TO GET THEM DISTRIBUTED?
Read more
