The fight against withoutabox?

[Gillvane]

I got this email. Didn't know there was a fight against withoutabox. Withoutabox for those that don't know is a company that helps you enter film festivals. You can create one digital submission package on Withoutabox and then just use that package over and over again to enter festivals (with a fee for each festival of course).

Anyway here's the info about "fighting" withoutabox. I don't know that I have any real problems with Withoutabox. Their fees seemed relatively reasonable and most festivals seem to find it convenient to use them.

One argument here I found not persuasive is that withoutabox is a monopoly. Withoutabox will kick you off the site if you use another service. But I don't think that constitutes a monopoly, just making your customers choose you or the other guy. You can still choose the other guy if you want, so how is it a monopoly? That's like Coke telling a restuarant you can serve Coke in your restaruant, but if you serve Pepsi we won't sell to you. That doesn't make a monopoly.

http://withoutaboxsucks.com/?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=1b8adcf5ae-Join_the_Fight11_14_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term =0_55d9a63180-1b8adcf5ae-76474173

[Chris Adler]

They have 4 festivals on their list of being against WAB. I don't see the problem, and they don't support any of their claims. To me this seems fishy.

[Chris Messineo]

It doesn't seem "fishy' to me as I have had several negative experiences with Withoutabox.

I guess I just wish there was a real competitor so the filmmaker had a choice.

[Chris Adler]

What choice are you forced into? Of the festivals I've submitted to I don't think ANY only accepted submissions via WAB. If you dislike WAB you can submit your film via snail mail. Maybe there are more festivals than I'm aware of that require it. What were the negative experiences?

[Chris Messineo]

There are many contests that only accept entries through Withoutabox (too many to list). In fact the last one I entered was that way (the Garden State Film Festival - http://www.gsff.org).

I have had issues with support, pricing, errors, quality - you name it. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but I do wish there were more alternatives.

The fact that someone has even started a site against it means others must have experienced issues as well.

I'm not saying withoutabox should go away, I just wish there more choices.

[Gillvane]

What choice are you forced into? Of the festivals I've submitted to I don't think ANY only accepted submissions via WAB. If you dislike WAB you can submit your film via snail mail. Maybe there are more festivals than I'm aware of that require it. What were the negative experiences?

I lot of the website about fighting withoutabox is from the perspective of festival owners, not the indie film makers. I looked at starting a festival in my area and considered Withoutabox because you got TONS more submissions than if you don't use it. However, the fees are substantial. Not a deal breaker but it's not cheap.

The harder part is finding a reasonable venue to show your films submissions.

[OldCorpse]

Let's be brutally honest. The festivals with the greatest impact are all open to the filmmaker without having to go through WAB. If a festival demands you go through WAB, is that a worthwhile festival? It depends on what you want to get out of a festival. The truth is, there are only a handful of festivals that are really top tier - Sundance, Toronto, Cannes, and throw in Berlin and Venice to bring up the rear end. Those are festivals with name recognition, marketing and impact. Now, you have specialty festivals dedicated to this or that, but even the top ones there are not career determinative in the same way. You want to play in the big leagues, get noticed at those 3-5. That's where agents and executives attend. Of course if you want to show at a festival for some other reason, that's different, and valid. But I don't see how WAB stands in the way. It's a resource like any other. If you have a brilliant film, you don't need WAB.

[Gillvane]

Let's be brutally honest. The festivals with the greatest impact are all open to the filmmaker without having to go through WAB. If a festival demands you go through WAB, is that a worthwhile festival? It depends on what you want to get out of a festival. The truth is, there are only a handful of festivals that are really top tier - Sundance, Toronto, Cannes, and throw in Berlin and Venice to bring up the rear end. Those are festivals with name recognition, marketing and impact. Now, you have specialty festivals dedicated to this or that, but even the top ones there are not career determinative in the same way. You want to play in the big leagues, get noticed at those 3-5. That's where agents and executives attend. Of course if you want to show at a festival for some other reason, that's different, and valid. But I don't see how WAB stands in the way. It's a resource like any other. If you have a brilliant film, you don't need WAB.

If you can get into Cannes of course you wouldn't care about WAB. I think that's pretty self evident.

[Zak Forsman]

Two of the festivals allied in the fight against without a box are mentioned in this article. I'm no fan of without a box either but this is likely backlash from shady festivals given the boot by WAB.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/an-...-part-2?page=2

[OldCorpse]

If you can get into Cannes of course you wouldn't care about WAB. I think that's pretty self evident.

Of course, which is why my point wasn't the obvious one you mentioned. My point was: is any festival that depends on WAB worth caring about in the first place. In other words, the other way around.