The year is starting out with big news for me- I’m leaving my job as Director of Home Media Sales & Marketing at Zeitgeist Films, where I’ve been in charge of selling DVDs and the move to internet and VOD licensing.

I’ve decided to return to the equally if even less logical pursuit of making docs, consulting, and looking for a sustainable day job. I’m very excited and I hope I’ll be able to give readers of this blog an even more first-hand take on the challenges and opportunities for filmmakers today.

Stay tuned!

Think Outside The Box (Office): The Ultimate Guide to Film Distribution and Marketing in the Digital Era is the new book from filmmaker/author Jon Reiss (not yet available at Amazon.com). For readers of this site, the book is probably both utterly essential and potentially old news. It provides a step-by-step guide to creating a strategy for your film in the digital age, and how to exploit different platforms and techniques to reach an audience.

I haven’t yet read the book but overall, if you care considering a DIY strategy for your film release, this looks like a fantastic resource.

Jon is touring about with the book, including stops at CPH:DOX; DIY Days: Los Angeles; and the IFC Center in NYC. He’s also the inaugural “Weekly Player” at Filmmaker Magazine, answering questions until November 16.

There are all kinds of schemes and innovations emerging in financing and marketing, and it’s no surprise that veteran producer Christine Vachon and her production company Killer Films are at the forefront. Vachon has teamed up with online film production network Massify and the uberhip NYC Ace Hotel (the Seattle and Portland locations are favourites of mine) to produce a series of short films- with sponsorship money from the hotel and the website but basic creative freedom (the films are set in a hotel, but that is hardly a constraint).

At tonight’s IFP fete for Bob Berney and his new distribution company Apparition (whose first release BRIGHT STAR had a genius love letter/tweeting contest), I spoke with consultant Jennifer Warren, who specializes in obtaining sponsorships for films. A promotional investment in your film seems to be more viable than ever before with the increasing sophistication of online social networks. It’s worth considering possible partners and seeking out mutually beneficial relationships through your own contacts or via a specialist.

Some cool stuff from the Toronto International Film Festival last week:

Liesl Copland, formerly of Netflix and now with William Morris Endeavor’s Global Finance & Distribution Group, gave a keynote at the Doc Conference about the state of digital and what it means for the industry. The takewaway: theatrical still has life; filmmakers need to learn about metrics; crowdsourcing is the new focus group.

Ted Hope, as captured by indieWIRE’s Eugene Hernandez, about Hope’s Doing It With Others (DIWO) philosophy. The takeaway: Blog, tweet, Facebook your whole life- or at least your projects and interact with other people using those tools. (He’s made a lot of films but does he have time now with all these social networks? He says yes.)

A conversation with a number of distributors in the New York Times about the state of distribution and what’s to come. The most interesting response for me was IFC prexy Jonathan Sehring’s, when asked about the glut of films in the marketplace (something the other respondents universally decried, as per conventional wisdom).

The one comment from my colleagues that drives me nuts is that there are “too many movies.” If one looks at specialized film as “art,” it is the only art form I can think where people who work within the industry say there are “too many” of. I never hear anyone in the music industry say there are too many songs, no one in publishing says there are too many books, no gallery or museum says there are too many paintings, no one in fashion says there are too many designers — why too many movies? When my colleagues say this it sounds like the anti-immigration, protectionist rhetoric from the far right.

Pat Aufderheide from the Center for Social Media on ‘what she learned at TIFF’- the takeaway: People still find Peter Broderick’s “DIY” presentation new, even after about 500 wears- he must be using Tide with Bleach Alternative! Also, go see some good docs.

I was talking to the lovely Astra Taylor yesterday and as we both have music ties we got to talking about the common comparison between the record biz and the film industry. We agreed that the new ways have benefit for some artists but not all- they’re great for musicians who are able to take advantage of the bigger live audiences, who might enjoy having their work exposed in an ad or other commercial setting and who have fans who will buy the merch.

I won’t get into the various problems of this model for film- that’s its own long post- but it does seem like it’s beginning to work for some people and venues. Rooftop Films is a great example. They show a film, make it an event, sell out frequently, and build an audience for a kind of filmmaking that would otherwise be fairly obscure. I’m not sure if this translates into revenue for the filmmaker, but as things head in this direction, it would probably be a good model.

Event screenings are kind of the indie film equivalent to an outdoor rock show. If you can get the filmmakers themselves in attendance, a party after, other related people in a discussion after, but most ideally something that makes it possible that by going to the event, the audience member could meet someone new (and cute, if possible). As with music, this may seem like a more labour-intensive route to getting your already hard-fought project out there, but that is why some little cottage industry should emerge- like service bookers who do much more. I’m just waiting for the first booker-cum-dating service, though I guess that’s probably the most unfortunate way I could ever have put it.

Have you done an event screening? Was it worth the effort?

At DIY Days in Philadelphia, Lance Weiler‘s traveling post-distribution networking conference, I may be drinking too much of the haterade*, but what seems to be emerging is kind of three-path future for film.

Path one is gigantic studio films that cost a lot and still rely on a certain level of lockdown on copyright and general control of dissemination.

Path two is the small filmmaker with an emerging set of tools to reach an audience, whose work must be made cheaply and flexibly, and who must include an element of interactivity and audience participation.

Path three responds to an audience demand for aesthetically pleasing, well-made films. Since there won’t be a revenue model to create these anymore, we’ll have more sophisticated delivery systems for the catalogues already out there.

I kind of think it’s a little bit apocalyptic, but the general consensus at the conference seemed to be in agreement. Now, the consensus would probably be different at Sundance or Cannes, where the DIY model has the kind of science fiction quality of the singularity, despite various panels promoting self- and digital-distribution.

Perhaps the most engaging event at the conference had less to do with mobile app development or website technology and more to do with storytelling and economics. Douglas Rushkoff, while not imparting information I always agreed with (or in certain cases, was entirely happy to hear), was fascinating to watch and dynamic and had the level of engagement and expertise that are worth getting up at some ungodly hour for. His thoughts about alternative systems of consumption are essential for anyone interested in producing in the DIY model. AND he played with PTV; you really can’t get more cred than that.

*term by Astra

Over on All These Wonderful Things, AJ Schnack questions SXSW prize-winner 45365‘s directors Bill and Turner Ross on their decision to ge streamed for free on Snag Films just months after their festival premiere. As of now they have no plans for a DVD release, which is one clue.

Ben from Shooting People was weighing the piracy issue a couple of weeks ago and its impact on independent filmmakers. The first dilemma is whether independent filmmakers can transition in the way indie bands have to be able to make money in other ways besides money for product transactions. In theory, this seems like it is the wave of the future- Robert Greenwald or Four Eyed Monsters-style. Filmmakers can, in theory, sell events versus selling DVDs, and potentially can make some money. No doubt touring in a bus is not as easy as having some record company shill a CD, either.

There is a part of me that feels a bit sad that there seems to be numbers of films that I think are good that would have a hard time reaching an audience in the emerging climates and I wonder if they will continue to be made. On the other hand, I’ve noticed that the spectrum of music that has awareness in general has really broadened in the past 20 years. The more people feel a direct relationship with the films they are accessing, the more they may be willing to branch out and explore.

Also, Ben suggests filmmakers have nothing else to sell? Why not? They could have games, ala Lance Weiler, cool swag like T-shirts for festivals or the web or speaking engagements for the filmmaker. Online they could give away the film and sell the extras, or create a community for the film with something value-added, or do contests or giveaways. Look at breakfast cereal- companies have been able to charge many times the cost of production because of packaging, extras, and perceived health benefits– filmmakers can learn from all kinds of marketing sources.

That said, it isn’t like a $5 million budget is redeemed with cracker jack prizes, but for filmmakers working on the cheap, making shorts or iTunes-friendly films, the indie rock model may not be that far-fetched.