Access to 40 Million – Is it an audience?

I sure struck a chord on that IFC post. Several people seem to agree with me that an IFC First Take film being “available for download by some 40 million national cable TV subscribers” doesn’t mean much. Being available to 40 million is not 40 million served.

They aren’t the only ones making such claims, however, and smaller fish do it all the time. LinkTV, for example, loves to talk about how they are “available as a basic service in over 29 million U.S. homes that receive direct broadcast satellite television (DBS).” Great, I’m glad their alternative programming is available, but who watches? To this day, I haven’t met a single person who does, and I ask people regularly.

To be fair to IFC, however, these films being accessible to audience members is not a bad thing. IFC needed to spin their change in course somehow, and this was as good a way as any probably, but they could have been clearer about the difference between potential and actual audience.

My blog is potentially accessible to billions of web users. That’s great – anyone can find it, read it and argue about it - I couldn’t possibly have written something just ten years ago and had that big of a potential audience. In the words of IFC, it is “pretty much unparalleled.” Oops, it is paralleled, by every blog out there, just like First Take films are paralleled by just about every on-demand film. We both have lots of potential, but what about audience?

I’d be willing to bet that maybe 12 people read my blog regularly if I am lucky, perhaps more when someone links to it from a more popular blog. I would love to be carried in Harpers or the New Yorker (or the Huffington Post), but I’m not. I don’t claim, however, that I’m getting unparalleled traction anyway just because billions of people could, theoretically, link to my blog and IFC shouldn’t use that same claim towards its 40 million potential viewers. It’s a bit disingenuous.

That said, the potential that I could be read, and that these films could be seen is a great thing for everyone. I would even call it revolutionary, as pretty much everyone does. I am glad that a world now exists where I could, in theory, order up any IFC First Take film on-demand from my home. I also love that I can go online and find thousands of other films that never got picked up by IFC or anyone else. It’s not easy to wade through everything, but just like I loved flipping through bins of albums by crappy bands just to find that one great record, I am glad that I have more access to so many more films.

It’s also great that filmmakers, who for so long have had so much trouble finding an audience, now have this possibility. Even if only 1/10^th of 1 percent of the potential IFC First Take audience watches, that would be 400,000 people (come to think about it, that’s a number worth aiming for). If you put your film on Amazon, they have 65 million customers – even better odds. I think most of us can feel inside our bones that this must be a good thing for both filmmakers and audiences.

Access does not equal an audience, however, and it’s an important distinction. Perhaps what we should say is that access is only part of the solution to finding your audience. It’s an important step, and one that shouldn’t be overlooked. Not being accessible to 40 million people would be much worse. But this doesn’t mean that being accessible to this large audience is an end-unto-itself, and filmmakers would be wise not to consider it a distribution plan. It should be part of such a plan, but you’ll also need a plan to make sure the 1/10^th of 1 % buys the film. To figure out these odds though - you’ll need to analyze the numbers. It could well be that more people will watch your film (and you may perhaps make more money) going with a smaller distributor or even self-distributing, than by being put out in First Take. I don’t know – since no one has the full picture – but its worth asking around and finding out who is making what. For all I know, more people watch LinkTV and I’ve only heard of IFC because they have a bigger marketing budget. Who knows? No one I know.

What’s really needed are better numbers – how often are titles ordered, how often is it a purchase and how often is it part of a monthly all-access subscription, what’s the split to filmmakers, etc. No one can fault IndieWire, Variety or anyone else for not answering all of these questions – the answers are obfuscated too often by the distributors - sometimes because they can’t give the numbers out (contractually), but more often because they don’t want to do so. While I do think some heavier digging could be done by the press, it isn’t easy. I may try to do some here eventually, or at my day-job though, because I think getting at these numbers is one of the greatest needs in the field. It’s way too hard for filmmakers to get real advice and real numbers on distribution, especially beyond box-office. Since most of us can agree that theatrical has become primarily a marketing move, this doesn’t help much. We need DVD, VOD, download, streaming and other numbers, and some way to correlate the effects of each mechanism on the overall success of a film. We also need systems and distribution mechanisms that help turn potential audiences into actual viewers, and hopefully, purchasers of films.

Bottom line – access is good, potential audiences are good – real numbers, even better.