Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game
Allison Victoria Carroll
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Fine Arts in Film and Television at The Savannah College of Art and Design
©March 2012, Allison Victoria Carroll
The author hereby grants SCAD permission to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic thesis copies of document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created.
Signature of Author and Date ______
______/_____/______Amy Lerner‐Maddox (Sign here) (Date here) Committee Chair
______/_____/______Bear Brown (Sign here) (Date here) Committee Member
______/_____/______Amanda Kulkoski (Sign here) (Date here) Committee Member
Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Film and Television Department
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts Savannah College of Art and Design
By
Allison Victoria Carroll
Savannah, Georgia
March 2012
Table of Contents
1. Thesis Abstract
2. Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game
33. Works Cited Page Independent Film Distribution: Anyone’s Game
Allison Victoria Carroll
March, 2011
This thesis focuses on independent film distribution and viral marketing. It was necessary to delve into the origins of independent film distribution and marketing in conjunction with how it shaped the film industry today. In order to fully investigate this topic it was essential to thoroughly define what an independent film is, in addition to the different types of independent film. Another important aspect discussed by this paper is the beginning of the independent film buzz, starting with Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989), and how the film influenced what was to happen in years to come in the film industry. Another topic is viral marketing techniques being utilized by independent filmmakers. This paper compares The Blair Witch Project (1999), which had the first notable viral marketing campaign, with District 9 (2009), which came out 10 years later and got its start on the Internet. Because of the ever‐changing nature of the film industry, this paper will also briefly discuss relatively new marketing and distribution strategies, such as day and date, and the films that have found success under these strategies; namely, J.C. Chandor’s Margin Call (2011). The way independent films were marketed when the “indie blockbuster” occurred and the way independent films are marketed now are completely different, but effective in their own right. This paper goes on to explore these differences as well as how these techniques apply to young filmmakers today. Lastly, this paper discusses these emerging types of independent film distribution and how they relates to the marketing and distribution of my thesis film, Light (2009).
1 The “Golden Age” of Hollywood is over. There is no surprise in that statement.
While big budget films and Hollywood directors are still in demand, a new genre is gaining prominence: the independent film. Viewers are looking to films with lower budgets and, at times, lower production value in exchange for unique ways of viewing films. The relative success of independent films is proof that audiences are hungry for these unorthodox methods and ideas. For the purpose of this paper, I will be analyzing several successful independent films and their ever‐changing methods of distribution and marketing, starting with one of the original “indie blockbusters”, Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989). This paper will also examine Oren Peli’s Paranormal Activity (2007), Daniel Myrick and Eduardo
Sánchez’s The Blair Witch Project (1999), and Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 (2009).
The four aforementioned films have come to be extremely well known, both for the unforeseen amounts of money they earned and for their unlikely appeal to mass audiences. However, many independent films fall far short of being called blockbusters and yet manage to make money and reach niche audiences just the same. As an example of these, this paper will also briefly touch upon J.C. Chandor’s
Margin Call (2011), an independent film taking a different route that has also enjoyed a certain degree of success. After examining the similarities and differences of marketing techniques and distribution deals, it is imperative to relate the outcome to independent films being made now, for which I will use my thesis film,
Light (2009), as an example.
The term “independent film” has changed drastically over the years and requires a re‐examination. In order to discuss them as accurately as possible it is
2 necessary to narrow down the definition of the term “independent film”. Michael P.
Connelly author of the book, How to Make a Movie With A Very, Very, Low Budget,
says on his website, that a technical definition for independent films is, “Any movie
that was funded with less than 50% of money that came from one of the “big six”
major film studios”.1 Since the average viewer is rarely aware of where a film’s
budget comes from, the term “independent” is being used with increased frequency.
Because of this, it is necessary to put the definition under more scrutiny.
While some of the budget for these films may come from independent
sources like individual investors, film grants, personal funds, and fundraising, it
often comes from “splinter divisions” of major studios.2 Some of these “splinter divisions” include, but are not limited to: Paramount Classics, Sony Pictures Classic,
Fox Searchlight, and Focus Features. Additionally, numerous independent films may in fact be funded independently in regards to their production budget, but their marketing/prints and advertising budget could be enormous due to a distribution deal from a large studio. The lines are so severely blurred now that pinpointing an all‐encompassing, accurate definition of the term is nearly impossible.
Jon Reiss, author of Think Outside The Box Office: The Ultimate Guide To Film
Distribution And Marketing For The Digital Era, likes to use the term “hybrid distribution” as opposed to independent or do‐it‐yourself distribution. The term hybrid distribution comes from Peter Broderick, a distribution strategist who says,
1 Independent films and festivals. Michael P. Connelly. 2007. Web. 06 Jun. 2011.
3 “…hybrid distribution allows filmmakers to combine limited deals with different
distribution partners (e.g. educational, theatrical, television, home video) and direct
sales from their website.”3 Reiss goes on to expand the term to, “…any time a filmmaker or media content creator uses a variety of techniques (conventional and/or unconventional, working with companies and/or DIY, old school and/or new school) in order to distribute and market their content.”4 Both definitions speak to
an independent filmmaker’s need to combine all the necessary fundraising and
distribution alleys in order to get their film out into the world. This topic will be
revisited later in the paper when discussing my thesis film and my goals and
strategies for marketing and distribution.
The means in which independent filmmakers raise money have also changed.
They have taken to the Internet with websites like Kickstarter.com and
Indiegogo.com. These websites allow filmmakers to set up fundraising campaigns
with goals for their film’s budget that they must reach in order to receive the money
pledged. They can upload videos that introduce the above the line crew and discuss
what the film is about. Gift packages are also made an option for people who pledge
at certain tiers. These gift packages often include DVDs, t‐shirts, posters, as well as
associate producer credits or a “thank you” during the end credits. So long as the
filmmakers achieve their fundraising goal, they are given the amount of money
raised minus a small percentage taken by the site. The money raised can include
3 Reiss, Jon. Think Outside The Box Office: The Ultimate Guide To Film Distribution And Marketing For The Digital Era. Hybrid Cinema Publishing, 2010. 22. 4 Ibid
4 funds for production and post‐production; some filmmakers even use these sites in
order to raise funds for film festival submission fees, which can be very expensive.
Often considered the first stage for independent films, festivals are an
integral part of the process, granting filmmakers exposure and, in some cases,
distribution deals. This trend began in the 1980s and has continued into present
day, although now film festivals must battle the popularity and ease of the Internet,
as well as an influx of independent films and festivals. Since the success of
Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape, film festivals have also been increasing rapidly
in numbers; more and more film festivals are popping up in cities all around the
globe. Acceptance into a large and prestigious film festival can mean thousands of
eyes are on a filmmaker’s work and, if it is good enough, it could lead to a
distribution deal, be it studio or otherwise.
Sex, Lies, and Videotape centers on a man who is having an affair with his
wife’s sister until another woman enters the picture with very strange sexual
fetishes. This was one of the first independent films to strike gold in the festival
circuit when it screened at Sundance in 1989, which was then still known as the U.S.
Film Festival.5 It harnessed one of the biggest distribution deals as well as
investment returns during its time, being an even better investment than Batman
(1989).6 Sex, Lies, and Videotape was made on a $1.2 million budget and in the end
5 Perren, Alisa. “sex, lies and marketing: Miramax and the Development of the Quality Indie Blockbuster.” Film Quarterly, Vol 55, No. 2 (Winter 2001), pp. 30‐39. 29 Jun. 2011. 33. 6 Ibid
5 grossed $24 million in North America.7 Batman was made for $35 million and grossed $248 million in 1989 while having a $15 million prints and advertising budget for the year.8 While Batman made more money overall Sex, Lies, and
Videotape had the larger return on their investment.
Sex, Lies, and Videotape changed the way Hollywood perceived independent
films and is partially responsible for the state of independent films and filmmakers
today. As author Alisa Perren says, “Sex, Lies, and Videotape ushered in the era of
the ‘indie blockbusters’ – films that, on a smaller scale, replicate the exploitation
marketing and box‐office performance of the major studio high‐concept pictures.”9
Miramax, owned by Bob and Harry Weinstein, purchased theatrical
distribution rights to the film at the American Film Market in Los Angeles after the
film screened at Sundance.10 As the marketing plans for the film were in progress,
Sex, Lies, and Videotape headed to Cannes to compete in the main event, adding to its
marketing swell. In the end, the film won the Palm d’Or, which is the highest honor
at Cannes, beating out other independent titans like Spike Lee and Hugh Hudson,
which further boosted the marketing hype.
During their time at Miramax, the Weinstein Brothers were known for
“tailoring” marketing to each individual film. Some in the industry viewed their
7 www.the‐numbers.com
8 Ibid
9 Perren 30
10 Perren 33
6 strategy as a dangerous game due to the company’s dependence on niche
marketing.11
Harvey Weinstein said:
Although we make artistic films, we don’t use the starving‐artist
mentality in our releases. Other distributors slap out a movie, put an
ad in the newspaper – usually not a very good one – and hope that the
audience will find it by miracle. And most often they don’t. It’s the
distributors’ responsibility to find the audience.12
When applying this strategy to Sex, Lies, and Videotape, Miramax concentrated on
two main audiences to market the film: the art‐house audience and the youth audience.13 For the art‐house audience, Miramax focused on the film festival awards
as well as reviews of the film in major publications like the New York Times. The art
house crowd was more focused on festivals because, unlike today, films that entered
into festivals then were viewed as much less mainstream and held more interest for
them as a niche audience group.
For the second group, the youth audience, the focus was on print advertising,
for which the budget was approximately $1 million.14 In the main print ad, Miramax offered two different points of view on the film. The first review referred to Sex,
Lies, and Videotape as one of the best films of 1989 while the other called it, “An
11 Perren 34
12 Ibid
13 Ibid
14 www.the‐numbers.com
7 edgy, intense comedy.” These two varying reviews gave the film a more serious feel
than other films debuting that summer, something different for viewers than what
was already on the menu.15 Miramax also decided to use a picture of the main couple kissing on the poster, giving the film a provocative and romantic feel. When all of these elements were put together, including the title itself, the viewer of the ad was left curious. Perren says, “To many within the industry, Miramax’s attempts to find the high concept in low‐budget films‐while still targeting specific niches in the market was a welcome approach to a then‐struggling independent film scene.”16
Feature length films that are accepted into major film festivals today have a
much larger tendency to play host to accomplished Hollywood actors. These films
often receive more exposure than an independent film with “no‐name” actors. Sex,
Lies, and Videotape has accomplished actors but, as the first independent
blockbuster, the same rules do not apply. However, Sex, Lies, and Videotape did play
a substantial role in the public’s opinion of film festivals. The film put festivals on
the map and proved to not only the art‐house crowd but also the average American
audience‐member, that film festivals and independent filmmakers produce work
that appeals to all types of audiences.
Although film festivals are an integral part of the independent film scene, as
seen with Sex, Lies, and Videotape, it is important to note the frequency with which
films are purchased now. Steven Soderbergh said, in response to the success of his
15 Perren 34
16 Ibid
8 film, “I’m a little concerned by what sex, lies might have wrought here, this can
become more of a film market than a film festival.”17 Soderbergh was dead‐on with his prediction of what he feared could come to pass for film festivals. The overwhelming success of films that have been purchased at film festivals has promoted an attitude of “Buy low, but buy, dammit,” due to the studio’s fear of missing out on the next cash cow.18 This frequency in purchasing also means an increase in the number of films submitted into festivals and ultimately more competition, forcing filmmakers to find new ways to promote and market their work: primarily the Internet. The Internet allows the filmmaker(s) to make their work readily available to millions of viewers and also allows them to maintain the original integrity of their work (often referred to as “final cut”), a concept not maintained by many studios.
Having “final cut” privileges, meaning having the absolute say in the film’s definitive edit, is a freedom often enjoyed solely by independent films. Very few
Hollywood directors are given this honor and most are caught between their studio executive and a hard place. This aspect alone makes independent filmmaking extremely appealing; however, it can also be highly troubling if the film gets picked up for distribution by a major studio, much in the way it was for Paranormal
Activity.
17 Perren 35
18 Ibid
9 Paranormal Activity was financed through non‐studio funds with a budget of
$11,000 and purchased later by Paramount for $350,000. Although a large studio
purchased the film, it was at first intended to be left on the shelf and later re‐made
“with a big budget and marquee of stars.”19 After screening the film, however,
Steven Spielberg suggested a new ending that was ultimately chosen for the
theatrical release. One could speculate this was done because Spielberg is an
extremely successful director (one of the few Hollywood directors with final cut
privileges), as well as producer, and is a trusted source and link to what audiences
want. While it may have been more ethical to retain the full work of the original
author, it is important to keep in mind that the rest of the film was maintained in its
original version. This is an excellent example of how indie filmmakers can easily
lose their ability to control their product once the rights are sold to large production
companies. When the DVD was released, both endings were included, so that even
though the original ending was not shown in theaters, it was eventually made
available to viewers.
The film was marketed fairly successfully through Eventful.com. Fans were asked to go online and request the film be shown theatrically in their city. If one million fans went to the site and pledged to see it then it would be distributed nationwide.20 The numbers were ultimately reached and the film was unleashed on the public. Michael Ho, culture writer for techdirt.com, also said, “Promoting the
19 Ho, Michael. “Will ‘Paranormal Activity’ Teach The Movie Industry A Lesson?” Techdirt.com. 12 Oct. 2009. Web. 9. Oct. 2011.
10 distribution of films in a way that actually targets fans is a smart move, too.”21 The
Eventful site was in fact a smart move, as it gave the studio an early idea of how well the film would do.
Paranormal Activity has been successfully franchised and is one of many independent films to make it big, grossing $107 million in the United States.22 Like
numerous independent films before it, Paranormal Activity made its debut at a film
festival, starting with Screamfest Film Festival in 2007 then Slamdance Film Festival
in 2008, and finally the Telluride Film Festival in 2009. Michael Ho said, “…it seems
a bit shocking that movie studios wouldn’t be trying to find/create more low‐budget
films that would appeal to movie‐goers.”23 It would be reasonable to suggest that if the ultra low budget/independent film craze Ho is calling for actually happened, it would make up the bulk of what audiences would want to see until their interest in indie cinema was exhausted, and a new craze would need to be introduced. Perhaps such a trend in film could work, at least temporarily, though it stands to reason that audiences would still call for big budget blockbusters and summer tentpole films, as these are the films that often hold the most mass appeal.
Marketing is an integral piece of the puzzle for any film, but most importantly for films that do not start out at the studio level, like most true independent films
(which, for the sake of this paper, are films that start out completely outside of the studio system, splinter divisions included). For films that start out at home or
21 Ibid
22 www.the‐numbers.com
23 Ho 1
11 school or wherever the independent filmmaker finds inspiration, the marketing
road is an uphill battle. Because of this, many independent filmmakers and
distributors are utilizing a style of viral marketing that speaks to a technologically
inclined generation while simultaneously making their product available to the
masses.
Viral marketing (or advertising) is defined as “a marketing strategy that
involves creating an online message that is novel or entertaining enough to prompt
consumers to pass it on to others – spreading the message across the web like a virus at no cost to the advertiser.”24 Viral marketing is a strategy that has been
employed by film but also by retail industries like Burger King, Volvo, and Long John
Silver; retailers are trying to get their audience’s attention by any creative means
necessary.25
Bob Berney, head of theatrical distribution at FilmDistrict says, “Studio
releases may have a $20 million opening weekend to survive based on their budget.
It’s very different for an independent distributor, though P&A expenses are about
the same.”26 The Internet made marketing an easier task for the independent filmmaker. The first independent film to really utilize the Internet and viral marketing to its fullest potential was The Blair Witch Project (1999).
24 Howard, Theresa. “’Viral’ advertising spreads through marketing plans. USAToday.com. 23 Jun 2005. Web. 1 Nov 2011.
26 Goldstein, Gregg. “Indie Distribs Cut To Marketing Chase.” Variety 3‐9 Oct. 2011: 8. Print. 8.
12 The Blair Witch Project was made by graduates of the film program at the
University of Central Florida and screened at the Sundance Film Festival in 1999.
The premise is that three filmmakers go out into the woods of Burkitsville, Maryland
to try and uncover the myth of the Blair Witch. In the process, the filmmakers go missing and their footage is found a year later. The footage is supposed to be the chronicle of their journey through the woods, ultimately leading to their untimely disappearance. The footage was marketed as authentic found footage and was shot in a documentary style in order to support their story. The film was made for
$35,000, money independently raised by the filmmakers. It was purchased for $1.1 million by Artisan at Sundance in 1999 and went on to gross $150 million in the
same year.27
When the film was first produced, a website was designed by the filmmakers and made available for viewing prior to the film’s release. The Blair Witch Project was one of the first films to utilize a website to their full advantage. Author J.P.
Telotte said the website should be “given most of the credit for the film’s success.”28
Films today are almost always accompanied by their own website; however, few use
viral marketing to its fullest and make it part of the movie‐watching experience.
When Artisan purchased the film, they took over the marketing and revamped the
website. After its purchase, the film was given a $20 million marketing budget;
prior to acquiring the rights to the film, no information was available in regards to
27 Telotte, J.P. “The Blair Witch Project: Film and the Internet.” Film Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Spring 2001), pp. 32‐39. 29 Jun. 2011. 32. 28 Telotte 33
13 the original filmmaker’s marketing budget. It is important to note the size of the marketing budget assigned to the film after Artisan’s purchase was over 500 times the original production budget.
The film’s official website, blairwitch.com, opens with a clip from the film and then enters into the core of the page. There are sections for mythology, the filmmakers, aftermath, and legacy. In the “mythology” section, a timeline is presented that shows the major events in the history of the Blair Witch that spans from 1785 to 1997. The “filmmakers” section has headings for each of the filmmakers as well as a slideshow of pictures. These pictures show them outside of the fictional “Montgomery College,” in film classes using equipment, and during day one of filming. The pictures under each of the individual headings go as far back as three months before their “documentary shoot” happened. This speaks to the desire of the filmmakers, as well as the studio, to be as committed as possible in selling this film as authentic found footage. The “aftermath” tab explores evidence tapes, photos, interviews, and chronicles the search for the missing crew. Finally, the
“legacy” tab lets viewers explore Heather’s (the main filmmaker) journal, audio, and recovered footage. The site is completely interactive and, by allowing the viewer to fully submerge him or herself into the story, it becomes less of a film and more of an experience.
Amorette Jones, head of Artisan’s marketing campaign said Artisan, “did commercial things; we just did them in a non‐commercial way.”29 Jones makes a
29 Ibid
14 good point using the term “non‐commercial”; J.P. Telotte, contributor to Film
Quarterly, points to how the website, along with other marketing strategies, helped
steer the film away from being so commercial and studio‐driven, it gave the film less
of an “entertainment industry product” and more of an experience. J.P. Telotte said:
Thus, the Blair Witch site offered to those who had not yet seen the
film but who might have heard some of the hype as well as to those
who had already seen it, a path of further investigation and a source of
other, similarly creepy sensations‐in effect, a different context for
viewing the film.30
A key element to this website’s success was its ability to completely immerse the viewer in its world. The site begins with back‐story in the perspective “world of the viewer” and, as they learn more and more about the events surrounding the disappearance, they are slowly absorbed into the world of the film.31
Another film with roots and marketing similar to both Paranormal Activity
and The Blair Witch Project is Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 (2009). The film is set in
Johannesburg, South Africa 28 years after aliens land in the city. The film follows
the journey of Wikus Van De Merwe, an employee at the arms company MNU (Multi‐
National United), who has been put in charge of the operation to evict the aliens
from their home in District 9 to their new destination outside of Johannesburg.
While completing the assignment, Wikus comes across alien paraphernalia that
30 Telotte 35
31 Telotte 36
15 explodes in his face during an examination. Shortly after, he falls ill, starts turning
into an alien, and becomes the center of a citywide manhunt.
The film’s director, Neill Blomkamp, a native of Johannesburg, made a short
film entitled Alive in Joburg (2006), which laid the groundwork for the feature length
District 9. Blomkamp had zero experience directing feature films, independent or studio, and his only experience with film had been making television commercials
and shorts in his free time. Blomkamp acquired an agent and sent his portfolio to
Universal where veteran director Peter Jackson, known for the Lord of the Rings
trilogy, viewed it and decided to meet with him.32
Peter Jackson chose Blomkamp to direct the Halo film he had in development, but the film never took off and the studio soon cancelled it. It was speculated the reason for the cancellation was because Blomkamp was an inexperienced director, although Blomkamp said, “Fox and Universal were fighting –
I mean, a lot of this happened behind closed doors but basically, the politics between
Fox and Universal crashed the movie.”33 Once Halo was shelved, Jackson still
wanted Blomkamp to have a shot at directing a feature film so Jackson
commissioned Blomkamp and his partner Terri Tatchell to create a feature length
script based on his short Alive in Joburg. They then sought out independent
investors and District 9 became a reality.
32 Robinson, Tasha. “District 9 director Neill Blomkamp.” The A.V. Club. 14 Aug. 2009. Web.
16 District 9 was made for $30 million and grossed $115 million in the United
States alone. “Hollywood should pay attention. You don’t always need $200 million to bring a script to life. All you need is a really edgy, unique story that doesn’t rely on expensive special effects,” said Steven Mallas, writer for bloggingstocks.com. In an interview with avclub.com Blomkamp said, “I think that I’d say $25 to $45 million is kind of where I want to be,” which shows that a “small budget,” compared to most other Hollywood films, can easily hit it out of the park. A film does not have to have a Transformers (2007) sized budget in order to be considered a popular or critical success. Critics often look at audience reception, money made at the box office and whether or not a film broke even.
Part of why District 9 was so successful was its viral marketing campaign, which has been one of the most interesting web‐interactive marketing campaigns since The Blair Witch Project. The main page for the film is d‐9.com. When a user enters the site, the first thing he or she sees is a trailer for the film and then there are two ways to view the site: human and non‐human. The user must choose one over the other, and each choice guides him or her through the site differently.
When the user chooses the human side, they are guided to an MNU Local Alert
System, which reminds them that “checking the site often will help you deal safely with non‐humans,” in a very friendly female voice. The friendly voice creates a sense of calm and safety for the visitor. The site also allows users to “Register for
Updates” from MNU by entering their e‐mail address, zip code, birthday, and lastly whether one is human or non‐human. There is a training simulator that turns into an interactive game as well as a link to MNU’s own website that redirects the visitor
17 to Sony’s website. A news ticker runs across the top of the screen in order to alert humans of non‐human travel on roads, attacks on humans by non‐humans, and construction delays caused by non‐humans. Rules and regulations for non‐humans are listed underneath the news ticker to educate humans on what non‐humans are required to do in order to maintain regulation and human safety. Lastly, there is a section to view sightings in the visitor’s area and a number is provided to call in order to report any non‐human sightings.
If the visitor chooses to view the site as a non‐human instead, they are in for a different interactive experience. The site remains the same, however, there is a warning when entering this site spoken by a man with a deep voice. He claims, “You must learn to follow all MNU rules and regulations. Non‐humans that fail to comply with these laws will be taken into custody and subject to penalty.” Half of the website is written in the non‐human, or alien, language that sometimes has a speaker accompanying it in order to translate; the rest of the site is in English.
There are also “Behavior Recommendations” that casually crop up on the bottom of the screen in non‐human script. Once translated, they are behavior modifications that make the non‐humans appear much lower in status than the humans. Some of the reminders are to give a standing human your seat when taking public transit, to always speak English when in public, and to please refrain from direct eye contact with humans.
These “Behavior Recommendations” are ever so reminiscent of the apartheid that plagued South Africa for so long. Blomkamp said in an interview that this film was not overtly related to the history of apartheid but that he did want people to
18 feel disgusted by the aliens. Blomkamp said, “I thought with the aliens, you’d think,
‘I don’t want to sit next to that on the bus, they look insane, they look barbaric.’ And
then by the end of the film, you’ve done a 180 on your perception of them.”34 The
site does an excellent job of alienating the alien or “non‐human” from the human,
regardless of which side one choose to view the site.
In addition to d‐9.com, Sony utilized the creation of additional sites to add to
the film’s “augmented reality” and viral marketing strategy. Those sites were:
multinationalunited.com, mnuspreadslies.com, and mathsfromouterspace.com all of
which are now out of commission and simply redirecting visitors to the Sony page
where the DVD or Blu‐Ray for the film can be purchased.35 In an article for digitaljournal.com, writer Sukhdeep Chhabra discusses these sites before they redirected people to Sony’s site. Multinationalunited.com is a website that gives a summary of the company from the film. This site goes over different divisions within the fictional company, careers available, as well as locations for the company.36 Mnuspreadslies.com is another fictional site run by Christopher, a non‐ human equal rights activist, also a main character in the film. The blog makes MNU out to be an intolerant organization and it showcases all their rules and regulations as discriminatory. The final site, mathsfromouterspace.com is “an MNU initiative
34 Robinson 6
35 Ryssdal, Kai. “District 9 Creates augmented reality.” Marketplace From American Public Radio. American Public Media. Web. 14 Aug. 2009. 1. 36 Chhabra, Sukhdeep. “Comprehensive viral marketing campaign for District 9.” Digitaljournal.com. 7 Jun. 2009. Web. 9 Oct. 2011. < http://digitaljournal.com/article/273770> 1.
19 that aims to ‘enhance the spatial and logic capabilities of the human body by
synthesizing earth‐based proteins with DNA from our other‐worldly friends.’” This
is basically a site that hosts a math quiz that either does or does not qualify you for
the program.
Beyond simply using viral marketing, District 9 enhanced their campaign by
way of augmented reality; a term Evan Fisk of Trigger Marketing defines as,
“Basically a way of overlaying images information on a video screen or display or a
monitor.”37 Augmented reality is not a tactic that can be easily executed successfully
by the average filmmaker; it takes the millions of dollars Sony digital marketing
invests in it in order to get it off the ground to be effective for the film.38 Once the
augmented reality is in place and executed, “it turns every poster, every billboard,
every icon on the side of a popcorn bag into a potential digital engagement
opportunity.39 These “digital engagement opportunities” help to not only spread the word but also support the viral aspect of the campaign. District 9 is much like The
Blair Witch Project in regards to their marketing campaign making the film more of an event in the viewer’s life as opposed to simply a film.
Kai Ryssdal, writer for Marketplace From American Public Media says, “Still, is augmented reality going to get me into the theater for ‘District 9’ this weekend? I don’t think so.”40 Ryssdal has a point; while augmented reality sounds like a novel
37 Ryssdal 1
38 Ryssdal 2
39 Ryssdal 1
40 Ryssdal 2
20 idea, is it really enough to get people interested in the film and bodies in the theater?
Is it enough to call the marketing strategy for the film successful? Perhaps coupled with the overall effort of viral marketing, it is enough.
It is easy to call the District 9 marketing campaign unorthodox and praise it for being so different, but at the end of the day what is important is whether or not it actually worked and was effective. The initial marketing campaign for the film started at the 2008 Comic Con in San Diego.41 Writer for cinemablend.com, Katey
Rich, likens the viral marketing campaign to The Dark Knight (2008), which also had a fierce aura at Comic Con the previous year; although, Rich says that alone may not be enough to do the film justice. “District 9 is a vastly different movie, so unfamiliar and original that even a sign like ‘For Non‐Humans Only’ on the bathroom door at
Comic Con isn’t enough to give audiences a clue what to expect,” said Rich. Rich also goes on to say that not only did the average audience not know about the film’s contents but neither did she or her boss. “As people ‘paid to know this stuff in advance,’ when it came to District 9, [Rich and her boss] were clueless.”42
The film itself made over $115 million domestically off a $30 million budget, which in Hollywood now is considered a lower budget film. That the studio could get back over three times what it put into the film is enough monetary “success” for
41 Rich, Katey. “Did the District 9 Viral Campaign Actually Work?” Cinema Blend. Ed. Kelley West. 17 Jun. 2009. 9 Oct. 2011.
21 a studio to label the film a hit. Also, the marketing campaign has to be credited for the result, as Rich goes on to point out. Rich says:
District 9 will be credited as an example of successful viral marketing,
and to some level, it deserves it. But when it comes to the long‐term,
super‐secretive viral campaigns, the success still belongs to the
franchise and the remakes, the known properties that will get people
seeking clues in YouTube videos.43
Rich is absolutely correct; the secretive viral campaigns will always be the most successful for the franchises and the remakes. However her comparison of the two types of films seems cheap and absurd, seeing as they are in leagues of their own. Franchises and remakes are virtually always made with big‐budget studio funds; we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, whereas a film such as District
9 was made with $30 million and financed with independent funds. The fact is that the District 9 viral marketing campaign got viewers in the theater seats and in the stores; in addition to the $215 million dollar worldwide gross of the film, there has been over $30 million dollars in DVD sales alone.
If viral marketing is this effective at such a base level, it makes this style of marketing seem more approachable to independent filmmakers who can set up a website fairly inexpensively. While something on as large a scale as District 9 would be very difficult for an independent filmmaker on an extremely small budget, even in the tens of thousands of dollars, it leads by example as a method that works.
43 Rich 2
22 However a website designed by the filmmaker/for the film certainly helps, it is not
necessarily required; all it takes is a quality film uploaded on Youtube or Vimeo to
help start a buzz. If the film is exposed to as many people as possible, the chances of it catching on and going viral are greatly increased. Once the film goes viral, the marketing will ideally gain momentum. This is a characteristic that makes viral video so appealing to all types of filmmakers. A viral video is one that is passed along the Internet through user sharing. Videos are often considered viral when they hit millions of views or are shared on talk shows; this is not necessarily part of the term’s definition, but more so part of the anticipated outcome.
Short and independent films are rarely experienced this way. Generally, videos that go viral cater more toward the YouTube audience, and usually involve pets performing oddities or people doing ridiculous (albeit often quite funny) things. However, if one wants to reach a broad audience base, YouTube is the larger of the two top video uploading sites, though the quality of feedback may border on the juvenile. The Vimeo audience, according to Dan Sung, writer for pocket‐lint.com,
“has an air of refinement about it”, making Vimeo the better choice for quality comments and a more concentrated artistic/creative audience.
A little bit of luck is one of the most important factors in whether or not a video becomes viral. Dawud Miracle, author of the blog, “Viral Marketing: Why You
Can’t Just Force It” says, “It’s something that sort of organically happens based on, first, word‐of‐mouth marketing, and then, second, by way of having chosen the right
thing at the right time with the right audience. In other words, viral is not
23 something we can just go get.”44 This makes the viral video route a risky choice, as there is no guarantee that one’s work will garner payment outside of the satisfaction of having viewers. While this may be part of the filmmaker’s ultimate goal, it will not necessarily pay the bills. Although risky, it can make the perfect add‐on to a marketing campaign if the filmmakers are simply trying to get the word out about their film and are possibly less focused on getting their film a distribution deal. If a distribution deal is one of the ultimate goals for a student film, then the idea of using viral videos may be less appealing.
Though Light is a short film, were I to ever turn it into a feature and begin the hunt for distribution, there are a couple of additional options. Day and date deals are steadily becoming some of the most lucrative ways to make one’s money back through distribution deals, and can be a smart way to go for independent filmmakers looking to put their films out there. Day and date is a type of distribution deal that means on the same day the film is released theatrically it is also released in another market, like video‐on‐demand or digital downloads.45 Part of the reason these types of releases or deals are so appealing is because they lack
“windows” which is how much time the rights of the film are taken advantage of
44 Miracle, Dawud. “Viral Marketing: Why You Can’t Just Force It.” 8 Aug. 2008. Web. 27 Jan. 2012.
45 Reiss 50
24 before they are made available in a different market.46 The first film to utilize the
day and date strategy and receive large amounts of press was Steven Soderbergh’s
2005 film Bubble.47 Soderbergh has always been a force in the independent film world; he was the first independent filmmaker to garner a large deal from film festivals and made independent film boom. It is no surprise that he was at the forefront of the day and date release.
Video‐on‐demand (or VOD) is an increasingly popular choice to pair with a film’s theatrical release under a day and date deal. With VOD, websites like
Amazon.com, Hulu.com, and Netflix.com allow users to pay a (often small) subscription fee in order to watch films streamed via the Internet. These hugely popular sites can promote the film internally, displaying it as a new arrival on the front page or as a recommendation to subscribers based on their previous viewing choices. A less popular, but still fairly common option is to release the film through a cable provider. The Independent Film Channel and the Sundance Channel, for example, will often show the films selected for the festival or films they have purchased through day and date distribution deals, thereby making them available to an audience beyond fesival attendees. VOD is still the most widely chosen of the two options, especially due to the mass popularity of VOD providers like Amazon and Netflix.
46 Reiss 49
47 Reiss 50
25 One of the most recent examples of a successful day and date deal was J.C.
Chandor’s 2011 film Margin Call. The film deals with a group of people who work at
an investment bank who are forced to deal with a financial crisis over a 24‐hour
time period. The film was released at Sundance last year and, after being well
received, Chandor was offered a few different distribution deals. The first deal
promised the highest amount of cash upfront, the second deal offered the largest
budget for prints and advertising, and the third offered a distinct VOD deal.48 The
VOD deal was offered through Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions, and was ultimately the deal Chandor accepted. Chandor said, “I knew going to VOD has traditionally been a sign of dumping a film, but the practical side of me eventually bought in.”49 Although Chandor was skeptical of entering into a VOD deal, it turned out to be one of the most successful VOD deals in history. According to The‐
Numbers.com, the film was made for $3.4 million, raked in over $12 million worldwide at the box‐office, and had over 250,000 video‐on‐demand views as of
November 2011.50 The projected amount of money gained from the VOD sales are
around $4 to $5 million, according to Josh Dickey. 51
Jon Reiss is an author and independent filmmaker most notably known for his 2007 documentary Bomb It, which discusses the roots of graffiti as well as its current place in society. In his book, Think Outside The Box Office: The Ultimate
48 Dickey, Josh L. “Margin of Success: Hyrbid Deals Rep New Frontier.” Variety 16‐22 Jan.2012: 1,6. Print. 1. 49 Ibid
50 www.the‐numbers.com
51 Dickey 6
26 Guide To Film Distribution and Marketing For the Digital Era, he discusses the
various ways filmmakers can and should go about marketing their independent
film(s). He says the first thing to do, even before establishing a marketing strategy,
is to “take stock of: what you want and/or need from the film, the qualities of your film, your potential audience, and your resources.”52 These are four tactics I did not
consider when preparing for my thesis film, and in retrospect wish I had.
Considering these steps, even before production, would have helped me to better
visualize and achieve my end goals for Light, and would have allowed me to better
plan for the film’s future, in festivals, online, or otherwise.
Another important factor in successfully marketing one’s film is to have the
proper staff even in the pre‐production stages of the/one’s film. This is something I
believe student filmmakers lack the most when it comes to production goals. The
producer, myself included, often believes they are capable of handling all aspects of
production and do not seek the appropriate help. Once a production is complete, it
is common for me to experience production burnout, a side effect, no doubt, of the
many hats the independent filmmaker is often forced to wear. The nature of
filmmaking in general is a stressful process, however, when working at a student
level with minimal funds, staff, and resources, the stress can be heightened. That
being said, I think it would be wise for student filmmakers to start designating
specific people to do specific jobs down to the marketing and distribution of the
film.
52 Reiss 29
27 Reiss puts heavy emphasis on having a Producer of Marketing and
Distribution; this person is exclusively responsible for the marketing and
distribution needs of the film.53 In addition to the Producer of Marketing and
Distribution, Reiss claims filmmakers need at the “bare minimum” the following
positions: distribution consultants, sales representatives or agents, a lawyer, a
digital rights aggregator, a webmaster, a television sales rep/foreign sales rep, a
graphic designer, and lastly an assistant.54 While I do agree that some of these positions are highly necessary, I believe at the student level some are excessive.
Having a Producer of Marketing and Distribution would have been extremely helpful during both journeys through my thesis films. Also having a graphic designer, webmaster, and a dedicated assistant are the most useful and realistic positions in the student film realm; Light was lucky enough to have both a graphic designer to handle poster art and the electronic press kit used for festival submissions and a webmaster that kept my personal site up to date with developments. These positions were some of the easiest to fill due to the influx of individuals wanting to build their portfolios while at school. While the other positions are extremely useful, they are also quite difficult to find at the student level.
One strategy I did use on my thesis film was to create a Facebook page for the film, a feature that many independent filmmakers are utilizing in order to keep fans
53 Reiss 61
54 Reiss 61‐66
28 updated on progress, while also providing them information on the cast, crew, and any important events related to the film itself. Creating a Facebook page for Light was a good way to garner crew and keep them involved in the process, and encouraged my peers, friends, and family to go watch the film at the Student
Showcase. Independent filmmakers are also utilizing Facebook to set‐up pages for their films where fans can get information on cast, events, and updates on the progress of the film itself. In regards to making films on a student scale or an independent scale with the same budgetary limits, the Internet is an amazing resource.
Most student filmmakers have their own websites that house their demo reel, their contact information, and a resume, as well as films they are currently working on. When my film Light was in production, my website had a section dedicated to the film which broadened my audience to not only my Facebook peers but also anyone who had access to my URL. This opened up the exposure possibilities for it even more; potential employers could easily see what I was up to in my film life with a more professional presence than what Facebook has to offer.
In regards to the success of marketing my thesis film on the Internet, I do believe I achieved the goals I set forth for the film. The main marketing goal for the film was to get the word out and then submit it to as many festivals as it qualified for; there was never any intention of making money off of the film. In order to achieve this goal, I made information about the film available on my website as well as Facebook, without making the film available in its entirety on the Internet. Often, a festival will not accept a film if it is widely available on the Internet because if
29 people can view it in their home, they are less likely to attend a film festival to view it. In retrospect, I think it would have been wise to perhaps simply put the film out into the Internet world and spread the word hoping the film emerged as a viral video or garnered Internet buzz, as opposed to submitting it to film festivals. Having this as part of the film’s initial “marketing strategy” would have given us a more narrow focus for the film’s goals. I believe almost every filmmaker wants to be the next director or producer on the scene, and they hope that their film will be good enough to knock down the doors at every film festival they submit to. While I believe that my thesis crew and myself are very talented filmmakers, it may have been beneficial to put the film out into the Internet world. This would have not only started building a fan‐base but could have garnered audience feedback to not only improve the current film and also to learn things for the next film.
Although making the film widely available on the Internet is a solid option, something else to consider about the film is the audience and how that influences the acceptance into a film festival. As a female filmmaker and producer working exclusively with a female director, who happens to be Cuban, it makes sense to take the film to festivals that embrace women and minorities as filmmakers. Submitting our work to film festivals like Woman and Minorities in Media Festival, St. John’s
International Women’s Film Festival, and Women’s Independent Film Festival may be the best type of festival circuit to market the film. In the past, Light has been submitted to other, mainstream film festivals with no success.
This is an industry still dominated by men and it is imperative to find the female audience for this film to succeed. This paper lists numerous films that have
30 set a new standard, paved the way for a new genre, or defied the odds staking their place in the Hollywood history. These films all have male directors, and while this could be coincidence, I think it speaks to the male‐dominated environment of the film industry today. It is also an observation that helps push the marketing campaign of myself and my director, Dennise Gonzalez, more towards women and minority centric film festivals. I believe this will be a more successful avenue for not only the success of the film but also for fulfilling the marketing needs of Dennise and myself. Marketing a film is a long and laborious process, just like it has been described in this paper, but finding the appropriate audience and niche makes the time and the effort completely worthwhile. The marketing road for Light has been long and uphill already, but it is nowhere near over.
In this day and age, it is imperative to stay one‐step ahead of one’s competition, although the film industry makes that increasingly difficult for independent filmmakers to accomplish. Sex, Lies, and Videotape started the independent film revolution in 1989, thus burying its studio competition and setting a new standard for filmmaking. The Blair Witch Project took the revolution a step further by integrating the Internet and was soon followed by Paranormal Activity, which had the most monetary success of the films mentioned and is currently in its third installment. District 9, on the other hand, is a film that found its roots in the short film community and went on to big box office gains as a feature. It adopted similar marketing techniques as its bigger budget, franchised counterparts, while still borrowing a few notes from its fellow independents (its use of a viral website campaign, for one) and still managed to come out on top. Then, of course, there are
31 films like Margin Call that are utilizing the increasing popularity of VOD, to find their audiences and get back some money. With all their success, whether it be the independent filmmaker who started out with a low/no‐budget indie, like The Blair
Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, and Margin Call, or films with healthier budgets
and more studio backing such as Sex, Lies, and Videotape and District 9, it leaves
independent filmmakers today with nothing but a positive outlook on marketing
and distributing their films.
32 Works Cited
Chhabra, Sukhdeep. “Comprehensive viral marketing campaign for District 9.” Digitaljournal.com. 7 Jun. 2009. Web. 9 Oct. 2011. < http://digitaljournal.com/article/273770> D9.com. Sony Pictures Digital Inc. 2009. Web. 1 Oct. 2011.
33 Robinson, Tasha. “District 9 director Neill Blomkamp.” The A.V. Club. 14 Aug. 2009. Web.
34