The problem I'm having with Kickstarter

I'm a fan of Kickstarter and their team. I've used it for films I've helped as a consultant, and I've contributed to several projects (not all of them film related) through it. There's nothing wrong with supporting projects you love, and yes, there's a little bit of a funding revolution going on as a result. That's all well and good, but...

I've been thinking a lot lately about the unintended negative consequences of it, and particularly how these relate to our current political situation and the future of both funding for the arts and of what types of projects get support. We build our society and our future with little decisions. We tend to make them quickly and just focus on the novelty of new mechanisms, instead of thinking about their bigger implications. This critique isn't a thesis, but rather my initial thoughts on the subject.

On the face of it, Kickstarter is pretty harmless, and I think the founder's intentions are good. It's great that people can raise money for cool things from the crowd. It's hard to raise money, especially for the arts, and there have always been a lot of gatekeepers in the way. Now, the people can decide what gets funded.

I fear, however, that this particular phenomenon fits a little too squarely with the right-wing agenda in the US (and elsewhere, actually). Government support for the arts has always been miniscule, but it's now disappearing rapidly, with many states moving to cut their state arts commissions and one that already has. This year, we saw more attacks on the NEA, CPB and other public funding for media and the arts. Yes, crowdfunding helps bridge the increasing gap, but I'd be much more excited if I received calls to action to support public funding for the arts every five minutes, instead of another email announcing a Kickstarter campaign I can help fund.

Why should I need to help fund some filmmaker I love, when I pay taxes that I believe should support the arts, but don't. This smacks of the "big society" ideas going around in the UK to me. The government doesn't need to help the people anymore, the people can help the people. While contributing to a Kickstarter campaign doesn't make you a right-wing, arts-cutting person, by any means, the adoption of such trends can be detrimental to the argument for public funding of the arts.

Now, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing, to play devil's advocate. Heck, the State Arts Agencies are probably a lost cause, and the NEA hasn't been very effective (although their new leadership is trying hard). A crowdfunding system is better than no system at all, and I've seen multiple projects raise more money in less time through Kickstarter than the average government grant. But I'm also weary of some other things this trend reinforces.

First, I've already witnessed the following:

• Funders who have already determined that they don't need to fund production and distribution, because anyone can shoot a film for cheap and give it away on YouTube, who now also add that it's easy to fund a movie, so why should they? Trust me, I've heard these arguments already.
• Funders who understand that good films can be expensive to make and distribute, but who think that you should show them a successful crowdfunding campaign, to show community support. I'm all for the power of the audience, but some art isn't necessarily popular, and making it a popularity contest won't make better, or more effective, art.
• Funders who don't know anything about any of this, but they smell a trendy subject easily, and are easily swayed. Many of these are now asking how your campaign went, even though they've never even looked at Kickstarter.

My biggest concern, however is this - guess who usually gets help when the people help the people? The rich and connected people. That's who. They've traditionally been the ones able to make indie films, by the way, even though people don't like to talk about it. This isn't exclusively true, of course, but it tends to be true - filmmaking has been a rich person's game for most of its history. In addition, the doc community is nothing if not an insider's clique, and Kickstarter isn't changing that much. There's a big danger, and it's a very likely scenario, that we'll just get more of the same in terms of what and who gets funded.

Take a look at who you hear from and support on Kickstarter. Unless you are an exceptional scout, I'm willing to bet the list is disproportionately Western, White and middle-class or above. Take a look at the most funded projects on Kickstarter, again it appears (from an unscientific survey) to hold up these assumptions.

Perhaps this will change. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps we'll live in a crowd-funded world in the future and it won't look like this. I'm not so sure. Are you? I, for one, would like to see things mature to something different - government funding for the arts, that is accountable to, open to and influenced by the people. Perhaps augmented by the crowd, but not solely supported by it. Diverse in both projects funded and who funds them.

In the meantime, I'll keep supporting the projects I love on Kickstarter. Perhaps someone will start a Kickstarter campaign to build an arts agency that takes the place of the NEA someday. I'll contribute to that too!

In a world of Free, the Future Lies in Find: Trend 6/7 Future Arts

This is part seven in an ongoing series of posts on 7 Trends for the Future of the Arts. Originally published (and partially reprinted here with permission of the publisher) in the book: 20 Under 40: Reinventing the Arts and Arts Education for the 21st Century. I'm presenting selections from each trend, and you can follow the whole post series from here. If you are interested in these arguments, check out and think about purchasing the book here.

Trend 6: In a world of Free, the Future Lies in Find

In a digital world, a copy is just zeros and ones and thus—copies are free. This makes piracy of content much easier, but it also allows for the legal dissemination of content. Many companies are finding that they can use free as one aspect of their business model, often through advertising and sponsorship support or through the use of free content to attract people to pay for an upgraded “freemium” version.

It is important to note that this does not mean that free itself is a business model—that wouldn’t be sustainable, but rather that free access can be one part of a multi-tiered business strategy. Raise enough sponsorship and it could be mutually beneficial to you, your audience, and Target to make museum entrance free one night a week (which is not a novel concept).

The Rise of With-Profit Endeavors: Trend 2 of 7 for the Future of the Arts

This is part three in an ongoing series of posts on 7 Trends for the Future of the Arts. Originally published (and partially reprinted here with permission of the publisher) in the book: 20 Under 40: Reinventing the Arts and Arts Education for the 21st Century. I'm presenting selections from each trend, and you can follow the whole post series from here. If you are interested in these arguments, check out and think about purchasing the book here.

Trend 2: The Rise of For Profit and With Profit Endeavors:

Today’s combined economic and business practice turmoil also creates a perfect environment for strategic outside players to unseat established organizations. It’s not that the established players in the music industry, for example, didn’t see that change was coming due to digital technology. The changes brought about by digital technology are so disruptive precisely because in order to embrace the new paradigm, one must undercut an existing, often very profitable business model.

Likewise, it is difficult for established arts organizations to embrace change that might undercut their current business models, but this leaves room for others to enter the sector. One could argue that such a shift is already occurring today. For example, the amount of promotion, fundraising, sharing, career-building, and market-creation of such new online arts discovery services such as YouTube, Flickr, Spotify, Pandora, KickStarter and Etsy alone, all of which started very small and outside the nonprofit arts, have likely had more impact on the arts than any six nonprofit cultural organizations can claim in the last five years.

It isn’t impossible to imagine such services being created, much differently, in the nonprofit arts sector. For example, if a film festival had thought broadly about the combination of cheap access to the means of production and distribution and the growing forces of participation and disintermediation, it could have created YouTube. The site might look somewhat different, offer more curatorial sidebars and probably have a less catchy name, but it arguably should have been possible.

There was a time in the arts world when small arts organizations contributed to this sense of innovation. Organizations such as Nexus Press in Atlanta served as incubators for cutting edge book artists regionally, and the Off-Off-Broadway theater scene acted much the same way, pushing the field forward, taking chances and launching many careers. Today, however, that sense of excitement and innovation is sorely lacking from the arts sector. Innovation, risk-taking, and flexibility have migrated back to the for-profit sector, and cool new ideas aren’t brought to fruition as nonprofits, but as Internet start-ups that capitalize on the access to funding and the risk-taking, free-for-all atmosphere of the new digital economy.

Similar innovations could be developed in the nonprofit arts sector today, but due to the risk averse, highly structured funding environment that has evolved in the nonprofit arts sector, it is more likely that several organizations will get funding from a Foundation to think about and strategically plan for the future of their field. While they workshop their ideas for the future, two people in a garage will probably out-think them in two weeks and launch the next big thing that further disrupts the ecology of the arts.

Building a culture of entrepreneurship in the sector will require fresh thinking and innovative approaches to funding and support that aren’t readily apparent. Few nonprofits have unrestricted income with which to explore new, especially risky, programs and fewer still have enough general operating support to hire and pay the usually higher salary expectations of the skilled workers to build such new ideas. Most foundations won’t fund a new nonprofit until it has been around for three years, require grant proposals that take longer to write than most business plans and they often discourage any risk-taking, preferring “tried and true” programs.

In contrast, a sense of experimentation often, and importantly, without true strategic planning but rather a sense of “let’s just try it because it’s cool” is what works for most innovative companies and is what’s missing (and actively discouraged) from within the nonprofit arts. Ironically, this is what many arts organizations expect from their artists—experimentation and risk—and artists seem to flourish given this freedom. Unless this sense of exploration is recaptured, most innovation will likely be led by the for-profit sector.

If neither non- nor for-profit models seem to work perfectly, perhaps the arts sector should explore new ventures at the junction of the two, combining the assets of the for-profit and nonprofit sectors to realize both financial and social profits. This new space, perhaps called with-profit, as in social goals “with profit potential,” promises a rich field for the arts sector to explore. Such experiments could be undertaken by existing or new nonprofits on their own, in partnerships with existing for-profit organizations, or by creating new for-profit subsidiaries and/or affiliates of nonprofit arts companies. With-profit endeavors could use nonprofit funding to accomplish that which the market won’t support, while for-profits would step in to capitalize on those items that have commercial appeal. For example, perhaps nonprofit arts funding could be used to seed the development of 12 new plays, with a commercial arm (or separate entity) ready to step in and take the one project with the most promise to market. Of course, this would need to include some remuneration to the nonprofit and would require some clever legal thinking, but it could be applied to any number of art forms.

A with-profit partnership would allow a nonprofit to continue to serve its underlying mission, and maintain its tax status, while providing a vehicle for exploration of profit-making activities. For-profit partners (or divisions) could bring in investments, explore more robust marketing and program development with other for-profit companies and maintain an eye on the “double bottom line” of profits and mission. Such alliances are not uncommon in the health and science sectors and should be considered by arts organizations as well.

Next Up: Trend 3: Disintermediation, The Audience as Curator.

Slides from my speech at Sofia Film Fest Meetings

Image via WikipediaI've been having a fantastic time here in Sofia, Bulgaria. I've met many great, talented people – producers, distributors, filmmakers, festival folks, etc. I've learned a lot from them about the state of film in Bulgaria (flourishing, yet having funding difficulties), of film financing and distribution in Europe (too much to share here now) and about Bulgaria generally. I highly recommend the Sofia Meetings to anyone interested in international co-productions, or to anyone who just wants to meet some great European film industry folks.

As usual, I spoke a bit fast at my lecture and many people asked me to share the slides. So here they are. If you've been to some of my recent lectures, there's not much new here, but some things have been updated, including some stats on Facebook usage in Bulgaria (strong). The speech was a general overview of changes to audience expectations, digital disruption and how artists are using these new tools to build their audience and make new business models. I didn't know my audience was going to be distributors until I arrived, but as I explained on the spot - nearly everything I mention here can be used by distributors, film fests and organizations as well.

Sofia: Inventing the Future of Film

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

What Happens When...a restaurant crowdfunds

I don't usually write up things that are in the NYT unless I am responding to an article or critiquing it. I figure that if something is in the Times, it will get enough traction that it doesn't need any more help from me. Today, however, I read about something that mixes two of my obsessions - food and crowdsourcing, and I think it is relevant to filmmakers too. In an article by Frank Bruni (whose food writing has improved now that he's no longer THE food critic) about pop-up restaurants, he reports on the efforts of John Fraser, the chef of Dovetail, to open a temporary restaurant in SoHo called What Happens When.

The article is worth a read if you like restaurants. He's taken over a space for just nine months and knows that even if he can extend his lease monthly, it will eventually end (the building is being demolished). He can experiment. Have fun, see what happens when....How Fraser is doing this, however, is quite brilliant and barely mentioned in the article (because it wasn't the writer's point) - he's crowdfunding part of his budget and even crowd-sourcing the ever-changing theme of the restaurant. Every month, they will change everything about the restaurant to fit a theme. The layout, the design of the menus, the food...everything. Anyone who donates to the campaign, no matter the dollar amount, can suggest a theme for the restaurant. They'll pick one each month and give you credit. Everyone who donates gets their name on the wall at the restaurant too. Those who donate more get premium gifts, with $2500 getting you a lot of cool things plus dinner for two.

This is the first time I've heard of a chef using Kickstarter. I've seen it used very successfully by filmmakers, artists, musicians and even product designers, but to my knowledge this is the first chef doing it. Everyone who uses Kickstarter gives something back in return, which Fraser is doing as well, but I looove that he's taken the concept further by also letting the crowd give input on the theme. Note that he's not just randomly letting the crowd decide, he (and his team) make the final decision, and they interpret how to roll out the theme. That's smart. Creativity works better that way, but it does allow the audience/crowd/consumer to get some say in the process. Those who have a theme chosen will undoubtedly tell others about it, and this will bring more business as well. Smart. Other artists should think about how to use this idea in their campaigns - you can still be the artist, but getting some more participation might help when it comes time to exhibit that art (film, music, whatever).

I also really like that he has partnered with a composer, photographer and two designers to make this happen. He gets additional creative input, but I bet more than a few customers will show up just because they like that composer's work, or are his friends. Sure, every restaurant works with designers, but what's different here is that they are a central part of the team. They are part of the advertising, and part of the fundraising and (presumably from how things are written) they are creatively and economically involved in many aspects of the idea. Wouldn't it be great if this is how we thought of our crew on a film - as partners, not just someone hired for the month (or day, and yes, I know this partnership notion is sometimes true for films too). Wouldn't it be great if every restaurant had a composer making music that fit the food, instead of just blaring whatever the hostess picked that night?

Anyway, I like the way Fraser is approaching this new venture. I also like the space he chose - the former home of Le Jardin Bistro on Cleveland Place in SoHo - which was one of my favorite spots in the neighborhood (does anyone know where that woman went??). I can't wait to see how he transforms the garden each month. I'll definitely be supporting this on Kickstarter, and I think filmmakers can learn something from his approach. Check out his video below:

How not to crowd-fund

There's a lot of buzz out there about crowd-funding, and I'm a big fan of the practice. I think there's a lot of hype, and not everyone can raise funding for their project this way, but it's also more than just the funds received - it's just as much about your connection to your fans. When I've donated to a project, it's about more than the money. I feel a direct connection to the artist and know I am supporting their work. This is also true if I support a micro-lending program for an individual in need, a charity doing good work, etc. It feels good to know that while you may only be giving 10 bucks, you are giving it directly to someone who needs it (for survival or for art) and helping them accomplish something.

I often support such projects through Kickstarter. Kickstarter is a for-profit company. They take a small fee for their service - five percent, plus a small credit card processing fee added on by Amazon's payment service. This is pretty transparent, and it also seems fair and reasonable. I know Kickstarter gets a cut, but it is small and not dissimilar from what most nonprofits charge when they fiscally sponsor an artist, which can run as high as ten percent but is generally 5%. Take IFP for example. If you are fiscally sponsored by them, people can donate to you on and IFP takes a sliding scale fee - anywhere from 3% to 6%.  Kickstarter works pretty well too, so I am fine with them charging for their service, even though they aren't a nonprofit. IndieGoGo is a similar site, and it charges 4% (which raises to 9% if you don't fund your project in its entirety), plus a 3% third party transaction fee.

That's why I am more than a bit perplexed that United States Artists (USA) is charging a 19% fee to those who donate to artists through their site. Wow. Really? Yes, really. That's 1% higher than what was reported in the NYT today, but it's what is quoted in their terms of use. There is no reason that any artist should participate in this scheme.

Now I have to give a little disclaimer before I continue. I have never been a fan of this organization. It's a long story, but when it launched I was one of a group of arts organizations that protested that instead of starting a new nonprofit to distribute grants to artists, the Ford Foundation (who started this) should have given grants to those organizations that were already supporting artists. Like the one I was running at the time (yes, some self-preservation was involved), but also like many other arts organizations. While I still believe this would have been a better path, I finally decided that even if the way it was being done was wrong, I would support the organization because artists were getting more money.  I've recommended artists to them for support (it is a nomination process, not an open call) and I've been thrilled for those artists who receive their grants.

In fact, I recently read (in the Times again) that USA was launching a crowd-funding initiative, and I was very happy for them and the artists. Many artists reported that new donors were finding them, and they were getting more support for their projects. Some, while skeptical at first, were happy to report that donations had exceeded their requests. I planned to write up a blog post this week to highlight this great new initiative, as well as a proposal from Ian David Ross and Daniel Reed for a new way of crowd-funding philanthropy in the 20 Under 40 book that I've been plugging here. That post will have to come next, because I've now learned about the bad part of this initiative.

Look, as I said above, I have no problem with nonprofits taking a cut on donations to individual projects. This is fair. I would even support them adding a check box where I could add an extra gift to the nonprofit. Something like "help us support more artists like this, add an extra gift here." That approach was also mentioned in the Times story. I would even go so far as supporting a nonprofit that just asked for a donation to help support all of their work in support of artists and not single out an individual project (old fashioned donation style). I understand that USA has helped "curate" these artists, and for some people (not me) that might be a symbol of quality. I also see that some of them get matching funds from a donor, that's great, but it isn't worth taking 19% of my donation to the artist. Perhaps you should get matching funds for your organization so you don't have to take it from me!

The NYT story suggests that making a donation to these artists would otherwise be difficult. I'm sorry, but that's just not true. Any of them could sign up with Kickstarter, Indiegogo or any other service and accomplish the same thing. Sure, a nonprofit might be helping an artist get their stuff up online, and many artists aren't good at such tasks, so I can even support a small mark-up, but 19% is insane!

Not to mention....hidden. If the NYT hadn't reported that amount (they said 18%) most people wouldn't know. When you click to support an artist on the USA website, it mentions that you should look at the terms of service, but unless you do so (and they know 99% of people don't do so), you aren't told anywhere else about the 19% fee. There's another golden find in their TOS statement too:


You understand that your contribution is being made to United States Artists, that United States Artists has exclusive legal control over all donations and that United States Artists is under no obligation to use your donation to fund any Projects recommended by you for funding.

....

While United States Artists intends to take into account donor recommendations with regard to funding recommended Projects, United States Artists shall have exclusive control of your donation and is not obligated to use your donation to fund any particular Project.

Translation - we don't have to give your funds to who you select. We don't have to follow your intent. What, did the City of Philadelphia write this up? Okay, I am sure they will likely give my donation to the artist, and are likely saying this in case the artist breaks their contract, but in my view, that should mean I get a refund not that they keep the dough. (I have a few other problems with their terms (especially as it relates to privacy), but that's the norm these days with website, so I'll stick to this one quibble.)

This goes against the entire spirit of crowdfunding. It goes against the entire nature of what it means for artists to build a direct relationship with their donors. I have no idea if the artist gets my contact info, as perhaps I'd like to fund them again, directly, in the future. I'll likely get hit up by USA again if I make this donation, as they surely keep my email address. I also can't be sure that the artist will definitely get my donation either. But, I can be sure - if I read the NYT, this blog or the TOS - that my donation gets cut 19% if I make it through USA. Really. This is what's astounding - more of my money supports the artist if I make my donation through a for profit company than a nonprofit. Something is wrong here folks.

We need a better system for supporting artists. USA was supposed to be part of that answer. I'd be much more likely to support both them and the artists they have funded if more of my donation went to the artists directly. I'd support their system if the 14% mark-up over most fiscal sponsorship charges was plainly shown, or better yet, if it was optional. Heck, I might even donate more, if it was a choice. I don't like slamming any nonprofit for trying to raise money for artists, but this isn't the way it should be done. Unless something changes, I can't support this program and recommend that you don't either.

Adventures in Plymptoons!

Thanks to the power of social networking, I was alerted that one of my online "friends" - someone I've never met, but hope to someday - is doing a pretty cool documentary project on the great animator (and real world acquaintance, if not friend) Bill Plympton. The filmmaker, Alexia Anastasio, sent me to her Kickstarter campaign where she is trying to raise funds for the film.

I get a lot of these emails, and while I check them all out, I rarely have time to give a plug even to the good ones, but I watched her video and I really like it. It's also clear that she has the support of Plympton - he's very much a part of her campaign, so I figured I'd tweet about it soon. Today I woke up, however, and saw this great post from Bill himself over at Ted Hope's blog where he talks about being a serious animator and the trials and tribulations of releasing a good, grown-up animation today. I highly recommend you read his post, and it made me decide to give a plug today to this documentary.

So, check out the Kickstarter campaign. Kick in some dough (as opposed to Do) if you have the inclination. Then, go out to the IFC Center and spend some dough watching Bill's film, Idiots and Angels. If you like it, tell others, so they spend their dough and Bill can make back the money he is spending on the release. You'll get an added treat - the film is prefaced by a short Bill made called The Cow who wanted to be a Hamburger, which I saw when I was on the jury for short films at the Florida Film Festival. I loved it, the jury loved it - we gave it a prize, which qualified it for Academy consideration. You'll like the whole thing and will, hopefully, decide to go back and give more money to Alexia's Kickstarter campaign and then see Idiots and Angels again. Or so I hope.

Here's her campaign:

Ai Wei Wei: Never Sorry and Muse

Of the many events I'll be participating in this Fall, I'm most looking forward to the Muse Film & Television Gala, focused this year on the film Ai Wei Wei: Never Sorry. (note, the website is a "holder" site, with a new one coming soon) directed by Alison Klayman. Big disclaimer: I am on the board of this nonprofit organization, so I am biased, but I can honestly say that I'd attend this Gala even if I wasn't. For those of you who don't know the Chinese artist Ai Wei Wei, he is one of the more important, and more well-known, living Chinese artists today. He is also a social activist, quite controversial and quite the Twitter user. From the Muse website:

Scholar, dissident, patriot, artist or activist— who is Ai Weiwei?  This much is certain: since his co-design of the Bird’s Nest Stadium for the Beijing Olympics, Ai Weiwei has catapulted to the forefront of the international art landscape, generating almost as much discomfort for his antics as admiration for his courage.


Whether smashing millenia-old Han Dynasty urns, or confronting Chinese police over a beating he received for investigating the Sichuan earthquake deaths, or turning a Twitter-advertised dinner party into a political action event, Ai Weiwei remains fearlessly outspoken, despite considerable danger to himself.  Willfully turning a blind eye to the very eye the Chinese government has relentlessly trained on him, he advocates for freedom of expression and access to information– principles all the more fragile and precious as China undergoes its remarkable internal transformation.

Ai Wei Wei was recently featured in an excellent New Yorker article, and I highly recommend you get to know his work. Actually, if you saw the Olympics, you already do - he was the co-designer of the Bird's Nest auditorium. This video ran with the article, and gives a good intro:



Ai Wei Wei will be attending the Gala, along with many other outstanding artists and art/film world folks. The tickets are expensive - it is a fundraiser after all, but they are tax deductible and benefit a great organization. Muse Film & Television is one of the only organizations dedicated to making films about art and artists. While this film has a "social issue" and technology bent to it, many of their films are less overtly political, but equally important. Muse is a producer of this film, and they have a great track record, so the film should be pretty incredible. The Gala will feature an auction of many great artworks, dinners, vacations and more. There will be an online auction at Charity Buzz, but I don't have that link yet. If you have time, join me at the Gala, and if not - follow the film from their website. Or, just follow Muse on Twitter - they send out some great news and info about art, artists and culture.

Sponsorship Blues

There’s a lot of talk out there about how the future of film’s financing lies in branding and sponsorship, but I very rarely hear much about the possible negative consequences. First, let me say up front - I’ve done a lot of sponsorship deals in the arts world and I’m actually in favor of such things. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it - some people make that argument and I respect it, but this isn’t a trash capitalism critique. Rather, I think that I keep going to conferences about the future of media and people are speaking a lot about advertising deals, leveraging brands, selling sponsorships, etc and no one seems to be thinking about the consequences of this - especially the potential downsides. There are many.
The first potential downside is that there’s probably no upside. It is highly unlikely that you will get any major brand to sponsor your film. Yes, there are examples and I can show them too, but “sponsorship” is the new elusive lottery prize for filmmakers that was once getting into Sundance or scoring a distribution deal - it’s always been the lucky few and this will hold true with sponsorship. As a friend of mine who is very high up in the marketing department of a major company told me - “if a filmmaker asks me for sponsorship, I would say they should pay me instead because they are gaining much more from my logo than I am gaining from them.” She doesn’t take meetings with filmmakers, this is hypothetical, but you get the point - good luck sister.

ATL-PushPush Distrib/Fundraise 101

Just back from my old stomping grounds of the ATL, where I did a few private consults and one big, long workshop for filmmakers at PushPush Theater. The experience, for me at least, was great. My slides are embedded after the fold, but first a few words of thought on Atlanta. Having been there, I'm not telling anyone who lives there anything new when I say there's some serious talent in that town. Sure, we all know about Tyler Perry, Rainforest Films, Turner and all that, but the ideas I heard from several producers/directors were pretty incredible. I also like the fact that they have great resources in town like GSU's DAEL center, the Atlanta Film Festival, a top-notch new media/gaming sector and with an amazing tax incentive, there's arguably few places better to shoot right now.

They also have innovative thinkers like PushPush Theater. Yes, I am biased as they paid me to consult and to speak, disclaimer enough? That said, I don't know of many other theater companies that are thinking about community and creativity like they are doing. They aren't just a theater company. Sure, lots of people open their doors to improv, to people showing film screenings, to training, to actors who might want to go from stage to screen. PushPush, however, is going further and thinking about how their projects can become multi-platform transmedia productions. This kinda started with a program they did called Dailies, which helped a group of filmmakers workshop a series of short film experimentations into what became Pop Film's The Signal.

Some things I'd like to know

To my mind, the biggest problem facing the indie film field is the lack of transparency around the numbers. Which numbers? All of them. Until we know a few basic things, it's really hard to say what's wrong, what might work, what has worked and whether anything really is wrong at all. Everyone talks about box office, but we all (should) know that those are really the least important numbers. If we had better data available, publicly, on VOD, deal points, DVD sales, etc., then we could build a more robust indie film sector. We don't know these numbers for a lot of reasons - many people make their living off keeping these things confidential, but some of them we just don't know because no one who should be asking them has bothered - ahem, that would be you, lackadaisical film industry trades (all of you). So here's twenty things I'd like to know, in no particular order.

FFF - What we can learn from social issue docs

All this doom and gloom in the film business is getting to me...

Nah, just kidding. I actually think that all of my posts lately have been pretty upbeat, even though some people have said otherwise - the underlying message is to figure out ways to make the film business work better. I also don’t hear as much negativity out there in the media business as I used to, in fact, most of that talk is getting pretty old and stale. When I meet with serious filmmakers, and by this I mean whether emerging or established, they have their heads on their shoulders and know the various games you have to play to make films and get them seen, they are pretty upbeat. They are generally excited about all of the changes, they can’t wait to experiment more and they can now at least try around with some new ideas since the old ones didn’t work well for many of them. Okay, quick aside, I do still meet serious filmmakers who are depressed, but I’ve posted enough about them for now and this is a happy post. So I’m now initiating a new category of post here, one devoted to nothing but the good news, the things that are working amazingly f-in well, things I love about film or the film world today or people I want to champion. I hope to keep up the good spirits at least once a week, but given my general grouchiness, and how many projects that pay me are on my plate that week, it may slip (unless I find some happy guest-bloggers, hint hint). I need a name for this feature, but I’m going to try and crowd-source that work - suggest away in the comments or via DM or email. For now, in the spirit of Twitter’s Follow Friday or #FF, I’ll call it FFF for Fun F***in Friday, which also let’s me celebrate cursing, my favorite hobby after film.

This week’s FFF - social issue documentary film. Yes, this sector is not usually associated with fun, but if you’re raising money, looking for help, looking for partners and strategies, looking for a community, building an audience, searching for new strategies, thinking about how curation helps content at festivals or pretty much any other activity in film, this is the Fun sector for you! I’m not kidding. The doc sector in general, but especially the social issue doc sector is thriving, has built some semblance of an infrastructure and is connecting with audiences, which isn’t easy for tough subject matter. It’s doing so well, in fact, that lots of filmmakers get upset that unless they are making a social issue doc there’s no chance for grant support, etc. But this is FFF, no complaining allowed - instead, we should look at what they are doing right and try to replicate some of it in the rest of the film world. So what water are they drinking? Well, someone who actually works in it daily can probably chime in with more than this list, but here’s a start (not in order of importance, just the order in which I think of them):

Re-thinking impact in film

I recently attended a think-tank, strategy session for an independent documentary filmmaker trying to have meaningful impact with his film. He did a smart thing - gathering about 30 really smart people (plus me, somehow) to talk about having an impact with film. This got me thinking about this question generally, and while this filmmaker was coming from the right place on this, I generally have a problem with this whole question. I have been thinking about this sense, and it led me back to a post I made on this blog in 2006. There might be one or two of you who read me now, but I figured most of my readers are new (the rest having left from all these long posts), and I think this post is still pretty relevant.  Plus, I've been busy this month and posting less, so this gives me something new/old. So, with some minor revisions, here’s some thoughts on the whole question of having an impact with film.

Increasingly, the foundation community and other funders of film are asking the question, how can we have more impact with film? Quite often they are focused only on social media, and the implications are twofold: first, that past efforts to have impact through film have not succeeded, and second, that impact means more than eyeballs – in other words, that audience size isn’t enough and that some larger change also must take place. Let us realize from the outset that the first assumption is completely false. The second assumption puts forth a proposition destined for failure, and one that is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relation of media to culture, the civic sphere and social change. That said, as many filmmakers and media organizations rely on support from those obsessed with impact, we must address this concern now, for although grounded in many false assumptions, the premise is ultimately true.

Engage 101 at Shooting People/DCTV

Tonight I gave a speech for Shooting People and DCTV called Engage 101 - Audience Building Masterclass. That was an impossible enough task, so I tried to make it harder and give a brief overview on film distribution, all the new models out there and some basics on using the web and some old fashioned tools to build your audience...all the way up to transmedia 101. Whew, not sure that was smart, but I got good feedback and it was fun. I also learned a lot from the questions, and at the end we opened it up for a group session on a few films, and as expected, the audience feedback was great. I always upload my presentations for free, so here below it is. No audio or video was taken, and these slides don't capture everything I said, but the essence is there. If you're super advanced in this stuff, it might not be worth your time, but could be worth a view for some new (and old) ideas. Feedback appreciated as always. This was also just one of many panels and masterclasses these folks do, with many great speakers, so check out their info online.

here's the presentation, and my apologies that Slideshare always repeats the title, the title, the title....I don't understand this glitch.

Shooting People Engage101

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

10 Film Trends that spell success and doom

This has been the year of new experiments in film and media. Whereas there used to be a few of us touting the new models, it now seems to be a cacophony of voices all extolling how the new tools available to us will change the world and make indie film successful. Ok, there's been a lot of gloom and doom talk as well, but as my reading list shows, there's been a lot of great new models proposed. But whenever a crowd agrees on something, well, something's wrong. So, here below are ten of the most promising developments of the year and a few words about why I think each one is also worrisome. Or rather, why the future remains uncertain. Note in advance - I really believe in the good side of many of these things, but I'm always contrarian...

1. Direct connection with your fans. Earn 1000 Fans and you can make a career. You can now connect directly with your audience and make a living. But to quote Matt Rosoff of CNET - "The common wisdom today dictates that musicians need a personal connection with their fans. They must blog, tweet, maintain their MySpace and Facebook profiles, and generally act like your next door neighbor who's always pestering you to see his band. There's a word for receiving "personal" messages from your favorite 100 bands--it's called "spam." Eventually, this cloud of self-promotional noise will dissipate, and will be replaced by old-fashioned word of mouth." I can't say it better. So, remember, as every other filmmaker catches up with audience-connection - and this means Hollywood too - you've got more emails, more requests for micro-funding and a lot more noise. Who do you think will drown in this noise....?

Recommended Reads

There's been a lot of great writing both in print and online (and at times, both) for filmmakers this year. It's late in the year, but I thought I'd give my quick summary of some great titles that I think are required reading for any filmmaker - or any person in the film business, really - and most are good for other artists as well. These are in no particular order, and while I know some of the authors and am quoted in some of these, I tried to be unbiased and stand to make no financial gain. Most were written this year, but some came out earlier (even much earlier) but I just got around to reading them, and near the end are a few that aren't even film/media books but that I still highly recommend.

The future of film and Pepin WI

I just returned from Pepin, WI the home of the great Flyway Film Festival. It's a small, regional festival with a lot of heart, and I had a great time. I met some great people, mostly filmmakers but also some local audiences and business owners, and saw some interesting films. The festival takes care of you - if you ever get invited, go, as they have great hospitality and it's an all-around good time. I was asked to attend to give a keynote at their opening night, and to speak on a panel. Below is the approximate text of my speech - I use an outline and ad-lib most of this stuff, but I think this text captures it well.

The Speech:

Thanks to Rick Vaicius and all the staff of Flyway for bringing me here to Pepin, WI. I’ve never been here before, and I’m delighted to be here speaking with you tonight. I’d also like to thank the sponsors of this fest, as I know they can never be thanked enough and I’d like to give a quick thanks to all of the attending filmmakers, because if it weren’t for you and your films we wouldn’t be here tonight. I want to talk tonight about the state of the film industry, the changes of technology and how Pepin fits in. I think that if you bear with me, we’ll find that it’s all interconnected.

It may come as a surprise to those of you in the audience tonight who aren’t filmmakers or film “people” but the film industry is in a bit of a crisis. Sky falling, batten the hatches, we all may die crisis. Or so everyone keeps saying. From most regular folk’s seats, that may be hard to understand - what with 500 plus channels on the TV, Netflix, Redbox, YouTube, 3D, Blu-Ray and yes, even Pirate Bay, it seems like a time of plenty for film. But these same things I just mentioned are part of an intricate puzzle and as of this moment it seems that as we add each piece we are slowly seeing the full picture and it spells DOOM.

Briefly - digital has been a disruptive technology that has upended the film world. Everyone knows what has happened to music, and we’ve seen it with print - books, magazines and particularly newspapers - and now it’s happening to film. I don’t need to go into detail - you either know this or you can imagine it. In theory, it is now cheaper than ever before to make a movie, and there are more mechanisms than ever before to get that film to an audience more cheaply than ever before. But it still costs money to make a good film, and someone usually has to buy it and take it to market. And filmmakers, and their investors would like to get paid and make a living. But whether you are a filmmaker or a company the situation is the same - the business models aren’t working anymore.

But the reality is - this isn’t new. The film business has always been a bad business except for a few exceptions. I think the crisis we find ourselves in today in film mirrors the general economic crisis facing our world today. As Warren Buffett has said - it’s not until the tide goes out that you see who is really wearing shorts. Well folks, the tide is gone and we now see that we’d been in a bubble and there was a lot of funny money but no real value. Likewise, in film, the tide is out, and many a bad business model has been exposed.

The old model for film was one of scarcity. For the most part, we watched Hollywood films exclusively because film was expensive and scarce and hard to make. We didn’t have many other options. Even with indie film, it was pretty expensive to make and the marketplace was hard to figure out - in theory, the audience for indie/art films was scarce too, and finding them was expensive. Even with TV and then VHS and DVD, there was a scarcity model - films were still expensive to make, manufacturing and distributing DVDs was expensive. Everything was built on scarcity.

But digital changes that. Everything is ones and zeros and a copy is free. And everyone can make one, and copy it and spread it to friends. Copies are now ubiquitous. Copies are now superabundant, they are no longer scarce.

When content is no longer scarce, we need to look at value differently. What’s valuable now?

Well, my time is much more valuable. I have lots of options. I don’t have to just watch the Hollywood movie, I can watch anything, or a remix of it. What is scarce is my attention. My attention is a new form of value.

Films are everywhere - anyone can make one, copy it, rip it, trade it, remix it. People say there’s too many films, too much to choose from, but back when I used to walk into a record store, I never said, there’s too many bands. So what did I do - I listened to my friends, to my peers, to critics and other musicians. I listened to people I trusted and that’s what’s valuable now - curation from a trusted source. This, to me, is one of the big values of a thing like Flyway - Rick’s curation. He’s reached in to that grab bag of thousands of films and curated something for this community. That curation is now valuable.

What also becomes valuable is authenticity. In a world of abundant copies, free or pirated material and fakes, I value authenticity. Authentic stories, authentic experiences that aren’t duplicable. That’s what we find here in Pepin - real people, watching films, with filmmakers having an authentic experience we can’t get elsewhere. I’ll pay for that, and I’ll value it more than it costs.

Small becomes valuable. It’s easier to find authenticity in small, but it’s also true in life. As Margaret Mead said - “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Well, small films can change the world. The problem is it’s always been difficult to reach small groups with mass media, thus broadcast. Well now, small films can find just the small audience they need online much easier than ever before. And it’s through small fests like this that we can build a new model for support of filmmakers. Everyone talks about DIY today, well the old punk DIY ethic was built on playing in small clubs - not unlike this room tonight, playing to real fans, going around in a van, but by reaching that core audience, one could make a living. I think it’s true again now for film.

Because with small, we can connect. Connection is more valuable than ever before. I’m connected now on Twitter, Facebook and every other social network. This has real value - Rick found me through email, reaches me on Twitter and the filmmakers here started talking before they even arrived. What’s valuable now is this idea of being connected directly to the band, the artist, the filmmaker. I can now support the filmmaker directly, buy their film from them. Through micro-payments, I can become a direct supporter of their film and they can get it to me before it becomes a mass release.

But it goes deeper.

It’s about a participatory conversation. Technology allows this, but I think it’s something audiences have been wanting for a long time. It’s no longer a one-way broadcast to many. It’s a dialogue between the artist and the audience. People can now talk to the artist during the making of the film, during its release or after it is out there. They may want to interact by making their own version, remixing your footage and sending it back, or sharing with others. It’s no longer a one way street. It’s why many artists are working with cross or transmedia - the idea that there story might be bigger than a film and include a graphic novel, or a game, or user-generated content - it extends the story and let’s the audience interact more with the art and at times, the artist. In a simplistic way, it’s also another way to get people to pay for content - they may not want just another copy, but they value paying a price to come here, see your film and hear you in a Q& A afterwards, and maybe meet you over a beer. Conversation makes for a richer experience.

But for many, this is also scary. I used to think filmmakers were afraid of technology, but they’re really afraid of dialogue. Conversation is hard. Being an auteur and having your final say on a story is much easier. But historically, this is an aberration, a blip. We used to have call and response, actors and dancers and storytellers had to react to their audience more directly. The audience reaction and demand informed their art. It was participatory. It was a conversation, and digital allows that. It’s not easy, but I think it is crucial to the art form.

We as artists and audiences need to embrace this new conversation. We’re faced with a lot of possible futures of where media might go. Big media - Hollywood, Murdoch, TV - they don’t like this conversation. They want a fancy one-way TV set where the only interaction is you buying some product they are selling. It’s what we’ll get unless we dream for something better - and to me, if the internet just gives me more things to buy and less conversation, less new story-telling and less access to genuine, authentic voices then we’ve failed.

So that’s how I see the connection between new technology, Pepin and the future of storytelling. In summary -

Curate - Tell others, spread indie culture, be a trusted source and support those like Rick who are;
Authentic - Demand and pay for authentic experiences;
Small - Think local, connect small communities. It’s easier than ever before;
Participatory conversation - engage in conversation, and as artists make this easier for your audiences.

We have more tools to help connect us - to connect our storytelling to audiences and to engage with them in a cultural conversation. These tools are often found online - but they help connect us in the real world, and they can also be found at festivals like Flyway. I believe we can use these tools to build the future of film culture. No one knows where the future of film lies - anyone who says otherwise is lying or wrong - but while we can’t predict the future we can, in the words of Alan Kay, build the future. The best way to realize the future of film is to take advantage of the tools we have available, both online and in Pepin, and start building.

Power to the Pixel

Here in London at Power to the Pixel for a little while longer. It's been exciting, learned a lot from other panelists, met some great filmmakers and could feel a real change in just one year - lots more nodding heads (in agreement, not sleep) than last year. Many filmmakers in my meet the expert session were much better experts than me, and doing some cool stuff. More on that soon, but I'm uploading my presentations below. Video will be up soon on PTTP and Babelgum. I was asked to deliver a presentation I've done before. So, the first one, on living with free is not new, just a couple slide updates. If you've seen it before, skip it. Second one was an hour.5 workshop on how to use social media to build audiences and funds. I added a few new things, but some have seen this. But for those who hasn't they are below:

PTTP London Film Forum Speech

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

PTTP09 London Film Fest Workshop

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

Living with Free - DIY Days Philly

Way back before my long vacation, I went down to Philadelphia to speak at DIY Days Philly. It was a good time, and I learned a lot from many panelists - although I am learning more now by watching the videos online of the panels I missed. My presentation video has been posted:



You can also look at the slides that accompanied the presentation here:

Diy Days Speech on "Free"

View more presentations from Brian Newman.

Perhaps one day soon, I'll combine the two so there's a presentation with audio. In the meantime, I think the panel that held the most interesting stuff for filmmakers was actually this one on music:

Help Northwest Film Forum

I got this email today from a friend at the Northwest Film Forum in Seattle. I'm a big fan of this theatre, and hope a few of you will join me in helping them out.

Friends, compatriots, and loved ones, I'm here with what could be the biggest small ask of my life.

I am writing to you to ask for your help. I am asking you for $10, the price of an average movie ticket. The Film Forum has had done many great things this year, but much like other organizations our income is off by 30%. And while we remain scrappy and imaginative in tough spots, this time is different.

We are looking at real changes at the Film Forum unless you say yes and support us. We need to reach a goal of $70,000 by August 15. Please walk it in, mail it in, or visit www.nwfilmforum.org to make a donation.

You and 10,000 others are receiving this, which means you regularly find our emails and enews in our inbox, which means that you care, too. Maybe you even love what we do and believe the city is a better place - more sophisticated, inspired, or just more fun -- because of the films we show here, the summer filmmaking camps we offer to kids, the screenwriting and film editing classes we schedule, the filmmakers we bring to town (and the classes they teach), and the movies we are so instrumental in getting made.

Classes, filmmaker support, equipment rental, special screenings, and film series, many of these programs may be put on hold, shelved, or stopped altogether without your small gift. That means programs such as Soul Nite and ByDesign could go. It means fewer masterpieces such as "Silent Light" showing up on our screens. It means maybe no more camera rentals. Jobs and programs are on the line.

So, as the movie voiceover says, imagine a world: imagine a world in which people can open a door and find community. Imagine a world in which emerging filmmakers can receive the advice, equipment, collaborators and support they need to make their movies. Imagine a world in which anyone can register for classes to get the tools they need to enter the fields of screenwriting, editing, and video production. Imagine a world in which you can see movies that change the way you see the world. Imagine a world where you can find people of a like mind for inspiration and community.

Fifteen years ago we did that, all of it. To summarize what the Film Forum provides the city would take a much longer letter, but if you are a member or regular patron you have a pretty good idea already. You already believe in what we do.

You can keep all this, now, for the price of a ticket at your average movie theater. It's tough out there, we know that; we have tried our best to keep moving ahead in spite of the current economy. But now we know that some of what we do and provide will go dark without your support.

I am asking you urgently. If you have benefited from our equipment, from the images on our screens, from our classes, from our network of people, from our famously great parties, we are asking you to say yes, you believe, yes you can give $10. Yes.

Please make a donation here.