And, while Spotify was pretty much an ideal landing spot for Joe, I am still befuddled why the video streaming services didn't make bids for him earlier. But this might be a wake-up call for them. Snap the top YouTube stars ASAP.
And, while Spotify was pretty much an ideal landing spot for Joe, I am still befuddled why the video streaming services didn't make bids for him earlier. But this might be a wake-up call for them. Snap the top YouTube stars ASAP.
Somewhat related, but I see so many clearly low budget and even local productions on Amazon Prime Video. I'm talking about mainly genre films which are clearly independent and very low budget. From unknown directors and with unknown actors. Some of it truly awful too.
So there is clearly an opening in some of the streaming services to at least get your finished project there. Not sure how it works, how they pitch the project to Amazon or if Amazon even has an open line for that. Or even if or how much they get paid to have it shown on Amazon Prime and available for free watching to Amazon subscribers. Would be actually interesting to know.
But at least once a project is finished it seems it's no longer difficult to find distribution and you are no longer limited to just Youtube either.
Yes.
Edit - it's more feasible for talk/chat shows rather than for films.
Double edit - let's say Joe Rogan's episodes get ~ 3 million views, with an an average length of 40 minutes (his shows can last three hours or more). That's 1.2 million hours per show or, @ 6c/hr ~ $72,000. At 250 shows annually, it'd be $18M/y. Which is roughly what he signed for with Spotify. ( $20M/y, according to the various sources)
Of course, my calculations are off if an average is closer to an hour/hour and a half.
Last edited:
Ok, but it works the same way for movies, correct? For an indie film this is not a lot. If 1000 people watch the movie and the movie is 2 hours long, the movie makes 120 bucks.
So Amazon never buys movies? And here I thought they somehow did.
At 6c/hr it seems to me one might as well upload his indie film to Youtube and try to get add revenue. Not sure it would work out to make more money, but I would guess YT being free the movie could probably get more views there.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Amazon does buy movies, but not the lower level ones you referred to. For those they function as a marketplace or exhibitor, with the producer getting a few cents per hour of stream. If Amazon does buy your movie it's a one & done purchase for total rights ownership.
YT has its own monetization scheme (which it can fudge now and again too).
The rule of thumb - if you want to get eyeballs, you do YouTube. If you want to monetize your product, you do an ad-based podcast (which is why audio only podcasts are huge) or you stream via Amazon. Or go PPV. Or ask for donations via Patreon or a funding platform. Or find a sponsor.
And what Mitch wrote just above.
So in other words they don't really buy real indie movies. Only the type of indie with big stars which play on Sundance and the like?
And why would they buy real indies if they can exploit them for 6c/hr?
By PPV you mean Vimeo and the like? Do indie films actually make money that way?
And you really think 6c/hr on Amazon makes more money than YT add revenue? Because on Amazon you are showing to a pool of 150 million subscribers. On YT you are showing it to the world.
I'm not sure but Patreon is back to the whole bagging deal. It's not that different from crowd founding.
And where Netflix fits in all this? Or they don't?
NorBro
Major Contributor
IMO, most filmmakers - who aren't already playing with trust fund money or those truly trying to tell a story with their hearts through a documentary and don't care about financial compensation - make films for the possible exposure.
Amazon and company are not going to waste their time with every single movie a person/company makes for the 20 total views it receives from family & friends.
Best bet is to create something amazing and share it with the world on YouTube. Millions of angles open up. You never know who comes across it.
If it moves people (one way or another), it may generate the buzz, and then you may have people reaching out or trying to find YOU. Start off with maybe a few collabs, some sponsorships, a brand deal, a potential television movie production...step-by-step up the ladder.
Amazon and company are not going to waste their time with every single movie a person/company makes for the 20 total views it receives from family & friends.
Best bet is to create something amazing and share it with the world on YouTube. Millions of angles open up. You never know who comes across it.
If it moves people (one way or another), it may generate the buzz, and then you may have people reaching out or trying to find YOU. Start off with maybe a few collabs, some sponsorships, a brand deal, a potential television movie production...step-by-step up the ladder.
This was my point. One would probably get more from having more people viewing it on YT.
Of course, the movie could be released on Amazon to see how much money it makes and then once it stalls, it could still be released on YT, since Amazon doesn't own the rights. I would hope that paying that little Amazon would not dictate some BS exclusive agreement, right?
But the thing is, even if it is amazing as you say, once you submit it for Amazon approval, would they offer you to buy it even if it is amazing? They would still profit from it paying you only 6c/hr. Why would they want to buy it? Or the submission channels for purchase are different?
Don't know.
When Amazon started the content creator program, someone posted about the experience here. It was a 30-min short that was viewed a thousand times or so and made them a few hundred dollars. The rates were much higher then. These days, it's not a bad way to monetize a popular YouTube channel. Most YouTubers would then remove some/most of their videos.
For films, one needs a lot of eyeballs. If you're a celebrity on a labor-of-love project, it may be be a worthwhile attempt because you can promote it via - wait for it - Instagram/Twitter/FB/YT.
Netflix, as Charles Papert mentioned, is a union signatory, which means that it has to pay the minimums. There are, obviously, ways around it but it's bad PR and they choose not to do it. However, there are close to 300 various streaming services around. And there are companies who will pre-screen yours for free (but, presumably take a larget cut for every step thereafter).
https://filmdaily.co/craft/how-to-sell-your-movie-to-a-streaming-service/
NorBro
Major Contributor
I don't know what the thought-processes are for any of them. But just FYI, I personally never mentioned anything is amazing; I honestly think it's very difficult and a lifelong struggle for most.
Some people truly get lucky and only need one big break.
I guess that's also the appeal of Hollywood too. I'm sure many of us can name several actors and actresses who had that one movie that catapulted their careers and resulted in many others for the next 10-15 years.
Some people truly get lucky and only need one big break.
I guess that's also the appeal of Hollywood too. I'm sure many of us can name several actors and actresses who had that one movie that catapulted their careers and resulted in many others for the next 10-15 years.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Just reading back here:
I meant, "...mentioned anything in particular is amazing". (Missing those keywords.)
From a financial standpoint, amazing to me is just tons of hits. Consistent traffic.
As mentioned with the thought-processes, I don't know if Amazon or anyone else would buy something that has already been viewed 100 million times for free...BUT if you were creating a web series on YouTube and you had 10 million views each week then that is something that would get someone's attention.
It could be as simple as just a writer/agent/actor/etc. reaching out: "Hey, love what you're doing with...would you be interested in...?"
I meant, "...mentioned anything in particular is amazing". (Missing those keywords.)
From a financial standpoint, amazing to me is just tons of hits. Consistent traffic.
As mentioned with the thought-processes, I don't know if Amazon or anyone else would buy something that has already been viewed 100 million times for free...BUT if you were creating a web series on YouTube and you had 10 million views each week then that is something that would get someone's attention.
It could be as simple as just a writer/agent/actor/etc. reaching out: "Hey, love what you're doing with...would you be interested in...?"
https://nikonrumors.com/2020/06/04/...iconductor-former-towerjazz.aspx/#more-146888
Tower Semiconductors (known as "Tower Jazz" prior to March, 1, 2020) shows off its foray into a high end photo and the cinematography business. In the images presented, two look like Nikon, the other like ARRI.
Tower Semiconductors (known as "Tower Jazz" prior to March, 1, 2020) shows off its foray into a high end photo and the cinematography business. In the images presented, two look like Nikon, the other like ARRI.
I don't think there is very much understanding here about how things work these days for these content suppliers.
What most people don't understand is that they are not particularly interested in the number of times a certain content is viewed.
The are interested in SUBSCRIBERS.
What does that mean ?
It means that they are interested in reaching and appealing to new demographics, beyond the ones they already have.
So even though content may only be viewed tens of thousands of times, instead of hundreds of thousands or millions, it may actually open up a new demographic for them. And they are likely to buy if it is a well made and incisive stab into a niche world that has great appeal to their next target market. Trust me, this is a very conscious process. Producers and marketing execs are constantly discussing new target markets. Pay attention to this and the topic of your next story or doc will likely be more successful.
Here is an illustrative example.
If your viewership base is corduroy wearing executives and nuclear families in semi-affluent suburbs, it may actually be more beneficial to buy that obscure documentary on hipster beard barbers across America. Why ? Because that is a whole new demographic for you. And there is a huge community of men who follow hipster trends. This represents a new subscriber base. The principle is that subscriber based services have already accrued certain demographics, so maintaining is of course necessary but probably also already covered from established tried and true providers. However from a content point of view, a constant search for new demographics reveals a growth based philosophy, which dear friends is the basis of all capitalism. And those are the kind of networks which you want to be targeting as an outsider.
So what does that mean ? It means that they often don't care about the story or even sometimes the quality of the film(s). They don't care about your treatment, your camera and the love of what you are doing. That's what YOU care about as an "artist". They are not looking at your "art" or what you are good at. What they care about, are the keywords, key images and the demographics they represent.
This is why Tiger King was a brilliant success for Netflix. It opened up a whole new demographic to be added to it's subscriber base. Which is no small feat for a behemoth like Netflix who already has an enormously diverse viewership. In fact from a marketing point of view, it was pure genius.
All this to say, when you think you are creating content which is ideal to try to sell to say Disney based on their general public image, you might in fact be completely missing the point. They may not be interested because they already have more than enough similar content. You may be much more likely to sell to a provider whose base has never had content like yours, who you never even thought of, and for whom your hook pulls in a whole new universe of subscriber possibilities.
Go get 'em.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
I personally don't really know what you're saying.
But as far as views/subscribers, it was just one off-the-cuff example. Usually if you had 10 million people tuning in each week, you'd have a pretty large audience already.
Subscriber count being more important than views isn't really news to anyone.
But as far as views/subscribers, it was just one off-the-cuff example. Usually if you had 10 million people tuning in each week, you'd have a pretty large audience already.
Subscriber count being more important than views isn't really news to anyone.
G
Guest
Guest
reviving this thread as it seems it will be announced this spring now.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
In the past ARRI has announced several new cameras at the BSC Expo in London. This year that's in the first week of April.