What do you look for in a VOD provider? How do you distribute online?

[Mattykins]

Hey guys,

I actually wanted to run a quick feeler to see how people are distributing their films online. Do you stream the film from your site? Sell DVDs from your webpage? Leverage Hulu, iTunes, Distribbr, OpenIndie?

Would having your film available on your site to view as a paywalled VOD stream be something appealing?

Basically, what I am thinking about getting into is a turnkey VOD portal indie filmmakers can use. It's essentially no-risk distribution. We would have your film on our servers, leveraging Akamai as our CDN, your player can be embedded anywhere online and is individually paywalled at a cost you determine. The paywall will have a google checkout, amazon payments, and paypal integration. Fair revenue splits (50% net with very well defined line items, account management and distribution costs). Detailed analytics available on your stream. HD, no-buffer streaming (via adaptive bit-rate delivery) iDevice capable streaming if requested.

Of course, open to features and shorts. Basically allowing online streams for your content wether it's a webseries, a feature presentation, or a short film to effectively be monetized.

I'm deep into the model, primarily gauging interest with this venture right now to be sure people would use the service. I'm really interested in your thoughts and suggestions.

Thanks!

-Matt

 

[MichaelP]

The second question is a bit weird - there has to be some revenue split in order for the VOD provider to build and maintain the servers, provide the e-commerce, etc. Question should be more of a percentage of profit type questions such as "don't lose more than 30% of profits (ala iTunes). etc.

Michael

 

[Mattykins]

Indeed. There are a lot of costs associated with it. Which is why revenue sharing is essentially a requirement. I can't seem to change the poll, and that makes some sense, so it will stand as it is. Thanks for the insight though!

If anyone has feature requests or comments, please let me know. The service is useless unless it's in tune with filmmaker requirements. And as much as I know about what I think filmmakers need - I don't know everything.

Matt

 

[Mattykins]

Hey all,

We are finalizing our business model and presentation packet for our first funding meeting next weekend. Still looking for feature requests or general usability thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[Mattykins]

Really? So no one would use a paywalled VOD player on their website to distribute their films?

 

[Fahad]

it's a pretty good idea. it's part of what i've researching for a while.

i'd probably use it if i had anything worth selling.

but i do have a question: how much does it cost?

 

[William_Robinette]

I'm not looking at this from a "big business" perspective or anything, but if I am browsing the web and find someones short (say from a link here) and I get pay walled I am moving on.

There is enough good free content on the internet to be had, and I'll just move on to it. Just my opinion from my consumer viewpoint.

 

[Blaine]

I guess my question would be how do you reach a market? That is to say, it's one thing to have things that people can download but it they don't know it's there or where to find it, it's pretty much a non-entity.

 

[Mattykins]

Yay! Feedback.

Blaine, the entire idea is to empower independent filmmakers. Many have worked hard to cultivate audiences and push traffic to their sites. What we would do here is simply move video. It's essentially an online video provider that content creators could leverage on their sites without the high barrier to entry associated with other OVPs.

They would have to market their own films and push traffic to their sites that have our player in them. I guess it's best likened to a youtube embed of long form content that can be monetized, by paywall, or ad serving - which we can provide as well.

William, I'd abandon a video that I stumbled across online if it was paywalled too. However, if I was presented with a lower cost option to view content than to purchase a DVD from an independent filmmaker that I'm already following, I'll be more inclined to proceed with purchasing. At the end of the day, it's an additional revenue stream for content creators. More and more people stream content everyday. Our system would allow content creators to stream their own content with a very low barrier to entry. And yeah, there is a lot of great free content out there - if it was a concern with paywalling, I can look much more deeply into ad support (prestitial, poststitial, and innerstitial). We can easy ad support your content, I just haven't looked too deeply into ad servers, but I might if people are more interested in ad-supporting their content rather than paywalling it.

Fahad, cost wise, we are taking all of the financial risk. It's a pretty good investment to have a system that runs flawlessly. Right now, we do have a listing fee of ~20 dollars in our business model. This is really to eliminate people who don't think their content is worth the money. Since we rely on user generated content, we don't want to be inundated with cat videos. And that listing fee also pays for the humans that have to prep your video for service. Aside from that, we have account management fees and distribution fees attached before net payout, that translates to you walking away with ~37-42% gross on your sales. That's how it stands as of today.

This is only phase one of a lot of exciting things to come.

I'll start looking into ad support. If that's something people are more interested in. Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Fahad]

Fahad, cost wise, we are taking all of the financial risk. It's a pretty good investment to have a system that runs flawlessly. Right now, we do have a listing fee of ~20 dollars in our business model. This is really to eliminate people who don't think their content is worth the money. Since we rely on user generated content, we don't want to be inundated with cat videos. And that listing fee also pays for the humans that have to prep your video for service. Aside from that, we have account management fees and distribution fees attached before net payout, that translates to you walking away with ~37-42% gross on your sales. That's how it stands as of today.

Thanks for the reply, Mattykins. I'm glad someone's taking an out-of-the-box approach for monetizing indie films.

however, if i understand correctly, you're asking for 63-58% percent of revenue + $20 for what essentially is video hosting + payment facilitator. since the filmmaker would be doing all the marketing himself/herself, wouldn't it be cheaper to have their own site and have it accessible through paypal, or whatever credit-card transaction facilitator? i don't know if it would be for sure, but i'm assuming it is.

not trying to put down your idea, just honest feedback. i do support what you're trying to achieve in helping indie filmmakers make money off of their work. but, i don't see that you have a competitive advantage.

what i have thought of in this regard is: say you had a video hosting website, in which the videos are categorized into appropriate genre's and sub-genre's, and where there is a sort of rating system and suggestion system (ala netflix). now, to get videos on there, instead of having anyone sign up and upload, and instead of charging people to upload, maybe you (i.e. your company) can invite people who have produced shorts/features/documentaries and the like which meet your website's mission/standards.

the incentive for these producers to accept would be: uploading is free for them because they have a quality production, and they get to share in the website's revenue (depending on how you want to approach it, the quality of content, and other considerations, this revenue could either be a yearly subscription model, or a non-intrusive ad system).

-------------------------

i've been looking/studying the case of vimeo.com, and it really bothers me somewhat. not that it's a terrible site, or a terrible idea, but the purpose of vimeo is NOT to enable filmmakers to make money off of their work. i think vimeo is more of an exposure platform for up and coming filmmakers, or a promotional platform for established filmmakers. i don't think even vimeo knows exactly what they are. from there about page:

From the beginning, Vimeo was created by filmmakers and video creators who wanted to share their creative work, along with intimate personal moments of their everyday life. As time went on, like-minded people came to the site and built a community of positive, encouraging individuals with a wide range of video interests. We hope that you feel inspired to show us both your creative side as well as your friendly side. Our team is based in New York and Portland.

nothing in their is about making money, being a better filmmaker, or even marketing content.

I am not bashing vimeo. i like that site just as much as the next guy. the only reason i bring it up, is that there is amazing content on their that's not being monetized for the filmmaker. that's just not their thing. that's fine. in fact, they charge money for uploading a lot of files or large files. that's fine. that's there thing.

but, wouldn't it be more attractive for all the talent that frequents their website to have a website that actually promotes, and makes the filmmaker money out of their efforts? maybe even a website that can provide the filmmaker feedback from viewers? feedback that's collected from polls, surveys, something of the like? a website that actually facilitates the growth of the filmmaker?

now, if you had a website that does that, i'm all ears. and if you're looking to hire business analysts, or whatever, please let me know :>

i hope this is constructive feedback.

cheers.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

I guess it's best likened to a youtube embed of long form content that can be monetized, by paywall, or ad serving - which we can provide as well.

Mattykins - while I don't want to discourage what you're doing, I'm a bit confused how this is going to differ from Youtube (who already offers long form content that can be monetized both via 'paywall' and/or ad serving).

I guess the difference is you have to be approved to be a partner on Youtube, and your service would simply allow signup for anyone?
Just trying to understand the differences.

 

[Mattykins]

Farhad,

wouldn't it be more attractive for all the talent that frequents their website to have a website that actually promotes, and makes the filmmaker money out of their efforts? maybe even a website that can provide the filmmaker feedback from viewers? feedback that's collected from polls, surveys, something of the like? a website that actually facilitates the growth of the filmmaker?

This is a great idea. We do have a similar concept, like netflix, just VOD, with intuitive searching. Feedback can be a total possibility. I was thinking of launching the self-hosted system first as a pilot and pushing into phase two later. Only so we can create a sustainable business model. But from what I understand, a content library that actively promotes is something people are looking for more than a simple VOD solution?

Luis, no worries, you aren't discouraging me at all. We've had this system in development for almost six month, and we push out revision after revision after revision seeking the best solution for filmmakers. We have a theatrical model in the works too, but we can't launch that until we have a system that is self-sustainable. Since if we have a bad theatrical release, we're done. Game over.

Youtube has piloted the youtube rental program to mixed results. I guess at it's base level, the current revision would be youtube's rental program, just embeddable (I don't know if youtube rentals are) and open for all.

We're adapting our model as fast as we can to make it make sense. I want to give filmmakers the best solution I can, one that benefits them and allows us to stay in business.

I should also note that our models are passing through some industry heavy-weights all wanting to provide the best system for independent filmmakers. I'm working directly a former Executive VP at Viacom productions. So far, our team is still trying to figure this VOD and digital releasing out. If it was easy, one of the majors would have already done it.

I appreciate your feedback, like I said in my original post, we are trying to make a system that filmmakers want and see as an effective releasing platform. That can't be done without hearing from you guys.

So take-aways so far: Centralized location, active promotion, potential feedback solutions, active acquisition, embeddable solutions.

Thanks again!

-Matt

 

[Zak Forsman]

Do you have a marketing budget?

 

[Mattykins]

Do you have a marketing budget?

We do. Low-mid five figures minimum. This isn't a small operation by any means. I might have made it seem that way initially.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I think you really have to look hard at both Netflix and Amazon. One of the things that makes Netflix tick is they hook the customer into a subscription model. This keeps revenue flowing for you and keeps the customer looking at new content, which keeps revenue flowing for your content providers. But of course this will only work if you have a huge amount of content to keep them interested. So don't limit it to just indy feature length films. Keep an open mind about indy productions (including but certainly not limited to training classes and tutorials like you have on Lynda.com, but from independents, and current news reporting like reports back from NAB, etc.).

The things that make Amazon tick for me are how easy it is to use, plus their customer rating system -- unlike Netflix, they let customers write reviews beyond just a star rating. Did I mention how easy it is to use? How important it is to make it easy for the customer to give you money? How if it's not dead easy, they leave?

Speaking of easy to use, it would be nice if you'd add a level of organization beyond what either of the big guys have now. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to easily find and rent the 2003 Sundance winner? Or all the entries from the first year? Or find all the films on your site by a given director? Or starring a given actress? So while you're at it (in your copious spare time of course ;-) add in a cross with IMDB.

I know, I know -- it's a hell of a database driven application. But clearly it's doable since the two biggies are doing it. And with this level of content and indexing, you might even get me to subscribe.

 

[Mattykins]

I don't think we'll ever consider a subscription only service. There are too many subscription services out there, that pie is getting eaten pretty quickly. That, and if we go subscription - the filmmaker proceeds drop exponentially. It would then become licensing the film, and thus holding onto rights, or paying pennies on the view. Which isn't the spirit of our upstart.