In the context of digital media convergence, Richard Harris in his recent monograph
The traditional model of distribution, based on the pre-selling of distribution rights to broadcasters and/or cinema distributors to finance a film or television program, gives the gatekeepers (television programmers, commissioning editors, film distributors, financiers) ultimate power to determine which stories will be made available to the public. Much has been made in marketing, new media and creative industries circles about the potential for new models of digital distribution to by-pass traditional gatekeepers (Anderson 2006; Bruns 2006a, 2007; Jenkins 2006), enabling producers to immediately and cost-effectively distribute their product to targeted niche audiences. Both academics and senior members of the Australian film industry interviewed by the authors are engaged with this idea, but the value – and indeed the mechanics - of digital models of distribution remain largely unexplored by academics. This paper will discuss emerging trends around digital distribution and flag how shifting public media consumption habits and developing digital media and communications technologies (mobile, wireless and Internet) are influencing screen distribution.
It is important to first clarify what we mean here when talking about new possibilities for distribution. Clearly, dedicated audio-visual user-generated content sites, the most famous of which is YouTube but there are many others For example:
At the forefront of new thinking around online distribution is Chris Anderson’s ‘Long Tail’ (Anderson, 2007). In his own words:
The theory of the long tail can be boiled down to this: Our culture and economy are increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of hits (mainstream products and markets) at the head of the demand curve, and moving toward a huge number of niches in the tail. In an era without the constraints of limited shelf space and other bottlenecks of distribution, narrowly targeted goods and services can be as economically viable as mainstream fare. (Anderson 2007, p. 52)
Narrowly targeted film goods, for example, are potentially economically viable as the online world can now operate as a low-cost shopfront for a film title. As the theory goes, a mix of peer and word-of-mouth networks, the sophisticated user-preference tracking behind commercial websites like Amazon and iTunes, and savvy niche marketing legwork collide in this moment to provide, for some, a perfect storm of possibility for by-passing traditional gatekeepers. Anderson compares the number of titles even the largest ‘big box’ retailer (such as Borders or JB Hi Fi in Australia) can afford to keep displayed in expensive retail locations, as compared to the low costs associated with Amazon storing low turnover titles in a huge warehouse in rural America. In short, for the later it is possible to keep on the books even the most obscure title as the real costs associated with doing so are next to zero. The breadth of material available online, and not just from recognised retailers, has therefore led to a ‘longer tail’; that is, an extension in the number of titles available beyond the hits dominating the shelves of the high street through basic economic logic (see Figure 1). As more of us become accustomed to being able to access more obscure and specialised content, and comfortable with mail order buying culture, more content is added and the tail ‘thickens’ (see Figure 2). As the economic and cultural landscape changes around them, the film industry wishes to avoid the mistakes of the music industry which tried to hold back the tide and instead cling desperately to its old business models (see deRoeper and Luckman, forthcoming), that is until a brash outsider in the form of Apple’s iTunes came in and showed them that there could be money in them there downloads (Luckman 2008). The ‘long tail’ is thus the space now being targeted as a growth site for professional film distribution.
At the forefront of maximising the potential of creative new distribution channels for film content is US consultant Peter Broderick (
- ‘nurturing interactive online communities and networks’ genuineness’ (SPAA Fringe, Sydney, November 2007)
The independently produced
- ‘You need to make sure your site is easy to post to and add content to, as easy as sending an email’ (SPAA Fringe, Sydney, November 2007)
To help to retrospectively repay the production costs and subsidise future production the website employs a number of strategies. Employing a model akin to that operating around other websites, such as social networking sites, $US1 is provided to the film producers for everyone re-directed to an advertiser’s site. They have also included a mechanism to encourage people to donate to get the filmmakers out of credit card debt (the
Also in the Broderick stable is what could be called the ‘Tupperware model’ – not for its pyramid selling qualities, but for its quality of using old media and mechanisms to get into peoples’ homes and communities, as it appeals to people on the basis of good, old fashioned shared communities of interest. While making and copying film texts might be accessibly affordable as a result of recent innovations in digital technology, ultimately the lesson of the long tail is an old one: target your marketing to communities of interest. So, as Peter notes, few companies—let alone individuals— can afford large-scale, non-targeted advertising campaigns (such as free-to-air TV advertising), but a quarter page ad in a hobbyist magazine is within the reach of most niche producers. Couple this with grass roots community screenings, advertised via traditional niche print media (such as the hobbyist or community publications), online and SMS notifications to interested subscribers, and getting the 10 most important sites around your film’s content to review your film and/or write up an article, and you have the basis of a sophisticated targeted niche campaign.
The value of this approach can be best assessed through a quick look at some of its success stories:
Ditto
Using this ‘Tupperware party’ model for distribution, old and new technologies converge. Events are mediated electronically, you log in and register if you want to host or attend, then audiences and those hosting screenings are matched by zip code. Screenings are frequently free with a discussion afterwards—both in the venue and online with producer Q & As. Hosting individuals or bodies can be reimbursed via a guaranteed percentage from each DVD sold from their screening. Many of Broderick’s key clients and/or case studies employ what he calls a hybrid approach, using traditional distribution outlets such as theatrical release, TV rights and conventional home video, but also utilising the internet, SMS and other forms of niche marketing to directly reach potential customers.
It’s interesting to note the centrality of documentary in many of these examples from the Broderick stable. Clearly at the moment, social networking is considered the viral networking tool
What made the difference was targeted, niche marketing. Working out who your audience was and hunting them down and giving what they wanted, or appearing to,” [Simpson] says with a laugh. It worked, with human rights organisations taking up the cause and Simpson’s lateral thought to ask religious groups “to bear witness” to the film’s tale of modern slavery also attracting large groups to screenings. (Bodey 2008)
Festival and limited screenings appear to be central to the Australian unfolding of these kinds of niche network marketing strategies. Australian Film Syndicate, a new local film distribution business set up by local producers employing these lines of attack themselves, see them as key as they “target community, regional and independent cinemas and rely on positive reviews, word of mouth and affirmation from local festival screenings or selection” (Bodey 2008). Geoff Harrison’s DVD distribution company Umbrella has a slightly longer history of success using communities of interest to generate income around the re-release on DVD of Australian films (Screen Hub 2007a). But unfortunately the hand that feeds can also bite back: the open networks that enable new audience development and distribution possibilities are notoriously hard to control, as the people behind
For Australian producers there are other drawbacks to the ‘long tail’ distribution model. ‘Long tail distribution’ in Anderson’s vision is the possibility of ongoing sales of content to niche markets through a variety of non-traditional platforms. For professional producers there are at least three ‘long tail’ distribution options:
Online and mobile niche marketing of content originally produced for traditional platforms (film and television) in traditional formats (eg full length features, TV dramas and soaps, television and feature length documentaries);
Online and mobile niche distribution of content which is more or less traditional in style and format but produced specifically for online and mobile media;
Niche distribution of non-traditional content produced in new formats for new platforms (online and mobile screens)
Each of these three models raises different issues to be overcome in the specific conditions of the Australian marketplace.
For many producers of traditional content the first model of long tail distribution is potentially a profitable option, offering the possibility of ongoing recoupment from a catalogue of existing and current productions. Certainly, this possibility seems more feasible than option two where there are some significant infrastructure issues to be overcome before the possibilities can be fully realised. Traditional long form film and television content can be streamed or downloaded online provided sufficient bandwidth is available, and to mobile devices if viewers have mobile devices with sufficient memory and battery power. None of these can be assumed, even in developed countries like Australia, where recent research undertaken by the authors suggests that bandwidth and cost are still major factors preventing user uptake amongst young people. The same research suggests that young people in Australia, unlike those in Korea and Japan, are still reluctant to watch long form content on mobile screens when they could more comfortably watch the same content on large screens, which points to these modes as best mobilised as advertising, not platform delivery, mechanisms as per the Broderick approach.
Reflecting the slow uptake of long form content online and on mobile devices amongst young people, there has been surprisingly little cross-platform activity in the Australian screen production industry, with screen content producers still to some extent siloed according to format and delivery platform. A variety of problems may be contributing to this reluctance, from IP considerations to narrow bandwidth and conservative attitudes. IP and rights issues may be lurking within production and distribution agreements signed before new models of distribution became available, and Australia is still well down the league in terms of bandwidth and delivery speed.
Finally, in an exceptionally risk-laden business where no more than one in ten Hollywood films breaks even (Harris 2007), traditional producers are understandably shy of taking further risks in uncharted waters. Last year’s Screen Producers’ Association of Australia (SPAA) conference focused on presentations designed to tease out issues which may inhibit Australian producers from engaging with new media (SPAA website for 2007 conference). On the up-side however, evolving marketing requirements mean that producers are increasingly required to deliver and distribute content in new formats and platforms. The need for trailers, promos and teasers for film and television content for distribution on mobile devices and online, associated fanzines, games, additional content on websites and the increasing use of targeted DVD marketing and distribution to niche market segments (using a mixture of traditional and new media-enabled networks) means that producers are becoming more and more familiar with the techniques of digital distribution.
For professional producers, a move to sole reliance on niche marketing as in the second point above is likely to entail a radical shift in production financing. Making a film is an expensive business, even a short film using digital technology. For example, the 23min. Australian claymation
(
The history of Australian film and TV shows us that filmmakers do not move to long form projects without at least one great well-funded short project behind them. The common exception in this area is the (almost exclusively) nice white middle class boys who work in Advertising. If Screen Australia is genuine about fostering diversity it MUST recognise that these short film programs are an essential part of the development of film makers who don’t work in Ad-land. (Coombs 2008)
Without pre-sales or government subsidy, producers must rely on private sector investment (hard to raise in Australia since the demise of the 150% 10BA tax rebate in 1989) or credit card finance (viz
Coombs response on the Screen Australia website to the release of the amalgamated organisation’s ‘New Directions’ draft funding documents also raises the issue of Australian culture and the role of a national film industry. She argues that “our industry is one of the whitest, most middle class industries in the country”, and asks: “are we really telling representatively Australian stories?” (Coombs 2008). Reinforcing this point, fellow Australian producer Steve Maccagnan as part of the same online discussion observes: “what does the future hold? More boring out-of-date stories, told in the traditional way with huge, fat filled budgets? God help us all” (Maccagnan 2008). Bringing the point home, Ian Brown is exasperated at Screen Australia’s draft guideline requirement for Australian films to have ‘cultural merit’, and his comments are worth quoting at length:
Having gone through the [Screen Australia] documents, I am left in absolute despair of the continual mantra stating that projects must have 'cultural merit'. This is, and has absolutely proven to be, the single most ineffective and self-destructive directive in the whole of the industry …. and it simply
Take a moment, lean back, and describe what 'Australian culture' is in less than a paragraph. Expecting a [government agency] to evaluate dozens of projects with this as a directive simply won't work - just as it hasn't worked for many years. …it almost always backfires and ruins many, potentially interesting projects.
Let's say a creative team has a good idea. They want funding. They think they don't have enough 'culturally relevant' material in the project. So they put some in. But it's fake,
I'm reminded of certain tribes in New Guinea. Tourists pay to come out to see them in their huts, using their stone tools. As soon as the tourist Land Rovers disappear over the hill they put on their Hawaiian shirts and get back to their iPods. The point is that it's all a fake, their real 'culture' is whatever they happen to be doing at the time. This is what 'culture' means. … If an Australian makes a film,
Weaving another important strand into the complex relationship between the old guard and the new, a number of people have commented on Screen Australia’s guideline requiring ‘inexperienced’ producers to attach ‘experienced’ producers with feature film credits to their applications for funding. Melanie Coombs, acknowledging that the traditional film vs. television, drama vs. documentary silos are beginning to break down, asks:
Who are these Experienced Producers? …there needs to be an acknowledgement that Experienced Producers often work across genres… If these ‘cross genre credits’ are not accepted then companies that have cleverly diversified their production slate making shorts and documentaries and television drama building towards feature film making (for example) are being punished not rewarded for their ‘enterprise’. (Coombs 2008)
But producer Steve Maccagnan tars all ‘experienced producers’ with the same fat cat brush:
It’s no surprise that the draft guidelines have come out in favour of the anointed few, as they were the only ones that were offered an opportunity to be part of the consultation process. They (the so called experienced producers) have been very vocal over the past few years about the need to reduce the numbers of filmmakers that got access to funding – congratulations – you’ve won. …Finally, what is the true definition of a screen credit? Is it 100,000 hits on your Youtube channel? Or is it 10,000 DVDs sold from your website? (Maccagnan 2008)
And bringing the argument full circle, Maccagnan supports his comments with a quote from Peter Broderick’s website:
Many of the rulers of the Old World continue to look backwards. Having spent their entire careers in this realm, played by its rules and succeeded, they can’t see past the limits of their experience. For them, the Old World is the known world, which they refer to as “the film business.” They explain away the serious problems facing the Old World by citing the film glut, higher marketing costs, mediocre films, and the historically cyclical nature of the industry. They appear to believe that everything will be just fine with enough discipline and patience—if fewer, better films are made, costs are controlled, and they can hold out until the next upturn. (Maccagnan 2008)
Certainly one of the logical things we’re likely to see emerge in terms of non-amateur production in all of this, is a greater recognition of the importance of fitting in with international genre expectations, be they high-end or niche. Further, and interestingly, we think access to global networks of distribution and content is having some specific local effects on the Local product itself; indeed upon the very notion of what constitutes Australian content. One of the key changes occurring at the viewer level, and hence with clear implications for production, is the increasing evidence base that local audiences are less concerned with where a text was made, and more with its genre; for example, a recent report commissioned found that an Australian comedy was seen as a comedy first and foremost (Prior 2008). Australian films, meanwhile, were identified, especially by younger audience members, as ‘something they show at school’, ie. worthy rather than sexy (Prior 2008).
The key reason for this shift to genre is precisely the way in which material travels online and/or virally (especially an issue for niche content). Though clearly operating on different distribution levels, what unites both the big and smaller ends of town is the breaking down of access to film production and distribution, and the reliance of both on an audience increasingly bringing changed expectations in regards to immersion, interactivity, authenticity and production values. As we learn to navigate the long tail, not only new aggregators but new identifications of the kind of content we desire are operationalised. While high-end Australian content such as Baz Luhrman’s
In a market like the US there are all sorts of interesting new possibilities enabled by user-generated content sites, the desire for networked online communities and the potential of decentralised long tail distribution. Thus the question remains: will this only work for US content as there’s a bigger local market? Many of these approaches, especially the niche audience/Tupperware) approaches, rely upon economies of scale for a meaningful return which simply don’t exist as they do in the US. When asked this question at SPAA Fringe, Broderick points to Byron Bay’s Evolve Media, and its focus on interactive content and direct to market sales. While taking nothing away from Evolve Media and their Screenshop, it’s obvious that the content available here has lower production values, and less financing to support it, than the US examples Broderick champions. This poses the further question: will the long tail ultimately still benefit the hits? as people seek out the content they know? Certainly there is evidence emerging around video sales which demonstrates a significant growth in the amount of material now available via the long tail which is either not accessed/bought at all or only negligibly (Elberse and Oberholzer-Gee 2007).