How to beat Hollywood productions and make a name for yourself

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I was thinking the other day about Sanctuary ( http://www.osnews.com/story.php/18033 ), the first serious web-only TV series. And I thought, why Indie film makers haven't done the same thing? I am not talking about creating cr*p like LonelyGirl15 or Prom Queen, but real low-budget series that feel like TV series. Indie film makers can embrace the web and USE it to their advantage, which is something that Hollywood won't do for many more years to come because they are slow adapting in new business realities. This is where Indie filmmakers can really shine because they would embrace these new realities and adapt to them better and faster than anyone else!

The idea is this:
- - You find a sponsor, an advertiser -- or more than one. Without at least one, you should not even start -- except if you like taking risks or if you have money to burn.
- - You create 6 minute webisodes. About 5 minutes for the actual webisode, two 15-second commercials for your sponsor (at the beginning and 3rd minute of the show), 5 seconds mini-commercial acknowledgment of your sponsor at the end of the show, and the rest is about the credit titles (and showing the link where to buy the commercial-free high-res version of the video). By keeping the webisodes at 6 minutes, you are guaranteed to have the attention of the short-spanning viewers of the Internet. Internet viewers don't sit in front of a computer for an hour to watch stuff, everything goes fast on the net. The industry must shape their business around this fact.
- - You shoot on weekends (if that's cheaper), and you edit the series during the week. On the last 2 days of the week you prepare for the next shoot. Of course, depending how well the advertisers are paying you can shoot the whole thing at once, and you can employ a location manager, a producer etc etc. It all depends on the budget you have.
- - There should not be more than 24 webisodes overall. Not only because people are getting bored fast on the net, but also because 24x5=120 minutes, enough for a DVD movie at the end of the cycle. Think of it as a tele-movie, cut in small pieces. Just make sure that the look & feel of each of your webisode is retained throughout the series.
- - Every week, you upload the video (with the ads) on the following video sites. Choose VGA/letterbox/30 or 24fps as your uploading material, as it seems to be the best of all worlds to be compatible with all the video uploading services. I have made the work for you, and here are the 10 MOST popular video services online today, according to Alexa.com and other such sites, in order of popularity:
1. YouTube.com (edit: they now pay shared ad revenue)
2. DailyMotion.com
3. MetaCafe.com
4. Veoh.com
5. Revver.com (they pay for videos)
6. Video.Google.com (?)
7. LiveVideo.com
8. EbaumsWorld.com (controversial choice)
9. iFilm.com
10. Video.Yahoo.com
Please read the terms & conditions of these sites before uploading to them, because some of them might be asking you to give your copyright to them, or other crazy things like that. Definitely make your homework before uploading.
- - You can have special business relations with some sites (just like PromQueen has with Veoh) and not only get listed on their "featured list", but also get money back if your videos are watched a lot.
- - You setup a simple, but nicely done web site (no bloody Flash required except for video playback in a QVGA window), where you can sell commercial-free 720/24p h.264 versions of your webisodes. It is important to not sell 1080i or 720/30p because AppleTV only goes up to 24fps on 720p (plus it will work better with older computers and it will require less downloading/uploading bandwidth). Price should not be more than $0.49 per webisode. For $0.39 you can also sell these videos in QVGA MPEG4-SP letterbox format which is compatible with many cellphones and the iPod. Alternatively, a QVGA h.264 letterbox format will be compatible with the Sony PSP, iPod and the *new* Nokia Symbian S60 3.1 phones (very few units have been sold of S60 3.1 so far, beware).
- - At the end of the series' cycle, about a week after the release of the last webisode, you REMOVE ALL videos from all these video sharing sites above (make sure that removal is an option before you upload, not sure if video.google let's you remove your videos) and you only offer a TRAILER on these sites, along with a link to your site where you sell the ad-free 720p/mobile versions of your tele/web-movie for $9.99 ($8.99 for mobile version), along with a DVD purchase for $9.99! iTunes can also play a role, again selling for $9.99. If you don't want to remove a video from a sharing site, make sure they at least share ad revenue with you.
- - It is up to you if you want to remove previous webisodes from the video sharing sites as a new webisode gets released (and only update each week a "previously on SERIES_TITLE" 1 minute video), or leave them as is until the end of the cycle. Some market research will reveal what's the best strategy to maximize sales without pissing off the viewers or backfiring and have people pirating.
- - To shoot such a web series, even a Canon HV20 should be good enough, at $1000. No reason for more expensive cameras, although they would be welcome if you already have one around.

Of course, for the idea to work you will need a compelling story and quite some planning. It would be a full time job, but that's what enterpreunership and "start ups" are all about. Cr*p like Prom Queen or LonelyGirl15 won't cut it though. I am pretty sure that some of the nice short movies that were submitted in the various DVXFest competitions here at DVXUser could be expanded to 2 hours... I'd love to watch/buy "Imprint" this way for example -- in case that a studio won't buy it to turn it into a full feature film, or if the budget of the creator is tight.

I for one, welcome our new Indie web-filmmaker overlords. What do you think?

 

[Nektonic]

Pretty good idea. Thanks for taking the time to post such a well thought out and detailed idea.

I was actually thinking of doing a short TV/webTV series about a year ago, but the length was what put me off. I was planning to do approx 12, 40 minute episodes, with maybe an 80 minute pilot episode. Or maybe divide the pilot into two parts. Anyways, that comes to a total running time of 480 minutes.

I like your idea because one could technically shoot and edit a feature (so lets say anywhere from 90 to 130 minutes to leave it more broad). Then you could divide it into episodic sections. Another thing to keep in mind is that you don't have to have the feature completely done before you start to post episodes. I would start when I was maybe 50% complete with post, or 1/2 of the movie was done. Then by the time you have finished, your series is already started and you have already begun building buzz.

The reason I would shoot and edit my film as a full feature as opposed to shooting it in episodes is so that whether it is viewed episodically or as a full piece it retains a cohesive look and pace. However, not all of us are able to shoot a feature in a condensed time period, so shooting on the weekends is a great alternative.

I might have to try this.

 

[pmgmedia]

My company did a pilot for a paranormal investigation show last year that didn't get picked up, so we are considering a similar approach to self-distribution. The big question for us is what is the real potential for paid downloads. People seem used to getting their content for free these days.. ( the pilot show is at www.thehaunteds.com for free if you want to check it out)

 

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

The first thing to do is to find an advertiser, and follow the plan above. During the time of the experiment (possibly during the first 5 webisodes) you will know if your show can be a commercial success on the net or not. If you already have a few episodes filmed, it won't be a risk to try, IMO.

To be honest though, I wouldn't buy a reality show of a sorts. I am personally interested in narrative live action shows or tele-movies, and maybe something as cool as well-researched scientific documentaries (that not even the Science Channel doesn't do). But anything else, I wouldn't buy... That's just me though.

 

[Knoxworth]

good luck qith Ebaum's world. They steal your **** whether you give them permission or not. I personally boycott Ebaum's.

 

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Is it the users or the site though? You see, even on YouTube someone can clone a video. You can't eliminate the cloning of videos by users, only minimize it (which is why I suggest that you leave up the videos up to the last webisode and only then remove them). The problem would only be if it's the site itself that does that, in which case, avoid it.

 

[snodart]

Great post, thanks.

 

[Knoxworth]

http://www.ebaumsworldsucks.com/articles/flash.html

Ebaum's sticks their watermark on everything & refuse to remove content when the author contacts them. Its pretty sick.

 

[weltonfilment]

The main problem will be finding a sponsor that will make the endeavor worthwhile. Because the series will be global just by being on the internet, the companies most likely to be interested are those that are global (or at least national) in nature. Obviously appealing to these types of companies is harder than your local businesses, but you never know. You will have to shoot a pilot episode or two and garner enough support on the internet in order for a company to justify advertising with you. You can't count on being able to charge for the content until you have established a firm fanbase, and even then its unlikely. The best route is to offer all episodes for free with a small ad at the beginning, as well as banners and other ads on the site. I have considered this idea before, and it is indeed something that is possible. It's just a matter of being able to devote equal amounts of energy to the business end of it as it is to the story end. If you can find the sponsors to support you, then more power to you.

 

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

What you say is true. Finding advertisers can be hard. However, while trying to convince them, you might want to borrow some of the facts found on this podcast that was published just a few hours ago: http://www.cvillepodcast.com/2007/0...elevision-is-now-steve-safran-of-lost-remote/
Check minute 1:00 to 6:30. Very interesting stuff about the future of TV being the Internet and the demise of many traditional TV stations if they don't shape up to the new realities... My only concern is for the Indie filmmakers get there first.

 

[FutureDVXUser]

When shooting to try finding funding for a TV show, does it have the be the pilot episode? It can't be an episode from somewhere in the middle of the season?

I had an idea for a movie once, but the story is kinda compelling so I've always thought of turning it into a TV show...

 

[Mark Harris]

Wow, welcome to 2004!

I love the idea of web-only series. But the idea is not new and the reason not everyone is doing it is it is nearly impossible without a lot of money. And you are NEVER going to get the kind of sponsorship you need without first delivering eyeballs to the advertisers.

First, it's really, really hard to write even one great 5 min script, much less one every week.

Second, it's really, really hard to get good actors week after week.

Third, it's really, really hard to schedule everyone to keep it up week after week.

Unless:

You have a lot of money to pay everyone.

I think a better approach would be to write a longer thing, and then shoot it all at once, and parcel it out over time. It would be infinitely easier to get cast and crew to commit to a week of dedicated shooting, than a half-assed shoot every weekend. Then you can take time with the post, and then post one a week.

Also, be aware that things like LonelyGirl and Prom Queen have media access. Lonelygirl was contrived by CAA, and they have no problem getting things into the press, thus building audience.

That alone is worth millions. And without that, you are at square one.

As far as distribution, I think Shaun at Misplaced planet has a lot going on. He is a member here and recently one of his videos was on the MySpace home page. So maybe it's wiser to focus on one KILLER video that will knock everyone dead as the pilot, and focus on getting that up in the rankings on these sites, and then, once the point is proven, go for some advertising and release more of them.

Anyway, I've tried this before, and it's really hard to keep schedules up. Not trying to poo-poo your idea, but there is a reason not everyone is doing it already.

We still do our series, but at spaced out intervals and is more like a collection of short films with common characters now.

But if you look at all of the successful web series going or coming up, they are not beating Hollywood at all. they are doing exactly what Hollywood does: spending a lot of money.

The internet is not changing anything. Big business is appropriating the Internet. Meet the new boss...

 

[Batutta]

It's discussions like this that make me fear for the art of filmmaking. Who wants to be beholden to a corporate sponsor to produce your art? it's one thing to get funding from studios or financiers who are interested in making a movie. It's another to get money from someone who wants to push their product, and is using your movie to do it. A corporate sponsor is going to want to control whatever it is you do, and their motives are going to be about making their product look good, not the film itself. I'm aware this would be somewhat true even if you worked for a studio, but with a studio the quality of the film is at least on the table as part of the discussion. With a corporate sponsor, if you don't conform to their needs, end of discussion. Unfortunately, with the internet taking over distribution, and viewers accustomed to getting their content for free, I think very soon the only way to be an artist and get paid will be by becoming a corporate whore. Of course, under those conditions, chances are you won't be producing much art.

 

[Mark Harris]

It's discussions like this that make me fear for the art of filmmaking. Who wants to be beholden to a corporate sponsor to produce your art?

Wow, welcome to 500BC!

Basically the whole history of art has depended on corporate sponsorship, from Phidias on down. It's a VERY modern notion that somehow artists should just not have to work for a living like everyone else.

I don't know what planet you come from but it sounds like a nice place.

 

[weltonfilment]

When shooting to try finding funding for a TV show, does it have the be the pilot episode? It can't be an episode from somewhere in the middle of the season?

It doesn't HAVE to be the pilot episode, but it makes more sense for it to be because it will introduce us to the characters and will make more sense than throwing us into the middle of the season. All you need are a few episodes that you can produce with your own cash that will attract viewers. Once advertisers see how many people are watching this thing, then they may be interested. Mark mentioned a problem with scheduling, which will occur unless you have enough money to pay people to make it worth their while. In my opinion, this can't be done super-low budget; you have to pay everyone a good wage and still make sure the quality is good.

 

[Batutta]

Wow, welcome to 500BC!

Basically the whole history of art has depended on corporate sponsorship, from Phidias on down. It's a VERY modern notion that somehow artists should just not have to work for a living like everyone else.

I don't know what planet you come from but it sounds like a nice place.

As I mentioned if you had read carefully, there is a difference between being paid by someone else to produce a piece of art, where the art is the end product, and being paid by someone to produce art so they can sell their products within the context of what you're creating. It's a fine line, but there is a difference. My fear is that the advertiser funded films and programs will soon be the only game in town.

 

[weltonfilment]

As I mentioned if you had read carefully, there is a difference between being paid by someone else to produce a piece of art, where the art is the end product, and being paid by someone to produce art so they can sell their products within the context of what you're creating. It's a fine line, but there is a difference.

Well it's called TV and they do it all the time. This is actually no different. Networks develop shows and then they hold seminars with advertisers to pitch the show. Interested advertisers pay money to have their commercials displayed. This funds the show. The advertisers do not have a significant role in the creation of the show. All they want is for the show to be popular and people to buy the products that appear in their commercials. This internet TV show would be no different; it would just be on a smaller scale.

Now when you have product placement in feature films, that's a different story all together. But that's not what this concept would be adhering to.

 

[mindzeye]

This is part of a great idea to help the INDEPENDENT MOVIE MAKERS become much less dependant on financers... however to obtain true control of your creative destiny... I feel it ultimately boils down to the Hollywood movie making model ... MONEY!!!! That's why Hollywood is almost an impossible industry to beat. Because you must be the distributor!! In this case you must host your own viral videos!! BUT WAIT!! TRAFFIC... WHERE'S THE TRAFFIC?? We must depend on some big media conglomerate in order to help our work reach the masses... and lets face it we love Hollywood. Who watched LOTR?? Okay!! There’s my point... which one of us would absolutely turn down an opportunity to work with a 100 million dollar plus budget?? Not me. We fuel the very fire that proves Hollywood's movie making model works!! This web idea is genius and CAN work... but it won't beat Hollywood... Hollywood is just another way of saying "WE MAKE MOVIES WITH BUDGETS OVER 100 MILLION DOLLARS AND SHOW THEM IN OUR OWN THEATERS AND EVERYONE ESPECIALLY INDEPENDENT FILMAKERS PAY TO WATCH THEM" Nothing beats the experience of going to a theater. Webisodes are a totally different animal… and I vote yes… but we need Hollywood… I mean… I need Hollywood… it taught me everything I know about movie making... Hollywood AND DVX USER J

 

[Batutta]

Well it's called TV and they do it all the time. This is actually no different. Networks develop shows and then they hold seminars with advertisers to pitch the show. Interested advertisers pay money to have their commercials displayed. This funds the show. The advertisers do not have a significant role in the creation of the show. All they want is for the show to be popular and people to buy the products that appear in their commercials. This internet TV show would be no different; it would just be on a smaller scale.

Now when you have product placement in feature films, that's a different story all together. But that's not what this concept would be adhering to.

Of course the advertisers have a significant role in the creation of the show, because if they don't think the show will help sell their projects, it won't get funded. Their judgement isn't based on artistic criteria, it's based on numbers and focus groups and all sorts of crap. So networks play it safe and genrally only approve middle of the road material. Every now and then something good slips though the cracks, but it's usually by accident.

 

[Mark Harris]

Of course the advertisers have a significant role in the creation of the show, because if they don't think the show will help sell their projects, it won't get funded. Their judgement isn't based on artistic criteria, it's based on numbers and focus groups and all sorts of crap. So networks play it safe and genrally only approve middle of the road material. Every now and then something good slips though the cracks, but it's usually by accident.

I don't think that is born out by experience though. If you look at network TV now, yes there is a lot of crap, but there are also many shows that are the best in TV history. Many shows that are far better than 99% of the movies released. LOST, WEST WING, MONK, BUFFY, 30Rock, LAW & ORDER, BSG, Star Trek, THE SIMPSONS(!!!) these are all really great shows. They all work within the advertiser system and still produce amazing work. I mean, the percentage of good work on TV is no less than the percentage coming out of Hollywood studios, and certainly no less than the percentage of good work coming out of "Indie" filmmakers.

Shakespeare didn't slip through. He was one of the most successful and popular playwrights of his day. And that man literally re-wrote history on a daily basis to please his patrons. What a whore.

There is no free lunch, it's that simple. If someone if putting up the money, they want to know that their money is being spent on something they will support.

Until I win the lottery. Then I will fund a feature film for every DVXUser and give them complete creative control. Or maybe I'll just buy a boat