Incorporating Diversity Into Project Strategy

I was thinking recently about project strategy as it relates to delivering successful projects with increasingly diverse, global teams, stakeholders and end-users.

A clear project strategy, one that acknowledges and plans for the complexities of the project management process, is certainly a critical factor in achieving a successful project outcome. But a clear strategy is often challenging to achieve. One factor increasing the complexity of a growing number of project activities is geographic and cultural diversity.

Today, it is not unusual to have a project initiated by a team in one country, designed by another team in another country, with prototypes and production occurring in another country, and ultimately delivered to end-users globally. It is similarly not unusual for projects to be unfolded across many business units around the world.

It can be argued that all projects are basically the same regardless of where in the world they take place. After all, they proceed through the same stages from initiation to closing. And the management and control processes within these stages are more similar than they are different.

But the evidence – including my own experience with clients and projects – points to some very significant differences once you cross borders and interact with different cultures. Work processes are different, communications are different, negotiations are different, stakeholder involvement is different and organizational cultures are different. And this doesn't just hold true across borders - many of these same differences can be found by simply walking across the street.

A recent example was a project with international suppliers who had national holidays (and corresponding time off from their organizations) that differed significantly from their western teammates. A seemingly insignificant detail – but a detail that undetected – could have seriously impacted costs, delivery and ultimately stakeholder satisfaction with the project.

To be clear, the implication here is not that diversity is a limitation – quite the contrary. Culturally and geographically diverse teams bring a more global perspective and open some amazing opportunities for creativity and collaboration. But there are challenges.

If we go into new projects expecting our own cultural mores to be the baseline, we are starting out with a half-closed mind and may create unnecessary and costly roadblocks. However, if we go in understanding there will be challenges to working across borders and cultures, we can address them and incorporate them into the project plan. Not only will this  immediately begin building trust within the team, it will help us facilitate a more productive kickoff – and most importantly – a successful delivery.

It's up to all of us to create an environment of inclusion, respect and collaboration.

SEC Lifts Ban on General Solicitation

SEC Building

For pretty much the entire history of filmmaking, those looking to raise funds for their film projects were not allowed to declare they were doing so publicly. Federal law required filmmakers - like everyone else trying to raise capital - to speak with investors individually, one painstaking meeting at a time. The new SEC ruling changes the game.

On July 11 the SEC voted 4 to 1 (in a somewhat contentious meeting) to approve Title II of the JOBS Act, lifting the ban on general solicitation. This means filmmakers will now be able to globally publicize they are fundraising instead of relying solely on word-of-mouth. The caveat is they must make reasonable efforts to ensure that all investors financing the film are accredited.

Who qualifies as an accredited investor?

• Institutional investors such as banks, S&Ls, broker-dealers, insurance companies and investment companies
• Corporations or trusts with assets in excess of $5 million and not formed for purpose of making the investment (look-through rule)
• Directors and officers of the issuer
• Individuals with Income > $200,000 or joint income > $300,000 or,
• Individuals with net worth or joint net worth >$1 million (does not include equity value of primary residence)

There are still a number of rules to follow, but the good news is that this ruling allows filmmakers to engage with investors in a more open and meaningful way via social media, blogs, web sites, press mentions, flyers on light poles... pretty much everywhere. Filmmakers with large followings can now monetize those followings by reaching out to all their fans/followers in toto.

The other good news is that there are currently more than 8.7 million accredited investors in the U.S. The better news? According to an article in Forbes, of those 8.7 million investors, only 756 thousand participate in angel investments. Lifting the general solicitation ban could grow the infusion of early stage capital tenfold.

Unfortunately, Title III of the JOBS Act – which allow unaccredited investors to participate in private offerings will have to wait – it's not due to be ruled on until 2014. But if Title III passes, it will massively accelerate the fundraising process by virtue of greater promotional reach.

There will certainly be a learning curve and one complication to the ruling is a potential pre-filing of a "Form D", which could add time and/or cost to the fundraising process.  But this is exciting news for filmmakers and other "job creators" looking to raise funding and connect to investors. Good luck!

If you want to read the entire SEC document you can find it here.

5 Elements of Great Communication

To get things done you need to be able to convey ideas clearly and effectively. Below are five elements the best communicators employ to deliver their message, gain buy-in and build respect.

1. Respect your audience. Get to the point. Let people know why they are in the meeting and what you want from them up front. Then provide the background and supporting facts and figures. Letting people know what you want up front provides context, it shows you value their time, and lets the person prepare appropriate questions.

2. Be prepared. Never ask people for their time unless you know exactly what you want from them. Anticipate questions that may arise and do your homework. If you're consistently prepared you'll build trust and teamwork. That said, no one is expert on everything and questions may arise you don't have answers to. Saying "I don't know" when you don't displays integrity and character, and convinces others you're worth listening to when you do know. But don't let "I don't know," happen too often.

3. Relate it to them. Here's the thing, people are busy. They don't care about you. They don't care about your problems or deadlines. They care about solving their own problems and their customers' problems. Help them do that and you'll win them over every time.

4. Create an emotional connection. People need to know what you're saying will matter to them. Connect by giving them your undivided attention and linking your message to something that matters to them. A great technique I lifted from the media industry is to frame your message in a brief, relevant story.

5. Be clear. All the authority and empathy in the world won't help you if people don't understand your basic idea or how you came to your conclusions. Make a clear argument that people can follow, wrap your message in narrative, and be prepared with data and analysis to back up your points.

Bonus tip:

6. Ask yourself this question. Before you approach anyone - to communicate anything - ask your self: What do they want? Knowing the answer isn't the point - you can't possibly know for certain. But asking the question shifts your focus away from yourself and onto the other person. And that is the point.

Video Abandonment - How Quickly Are Viewers Clicking Away From Your Content?

How many of us click away from videos while they're still playing? The practice is called video abandonment and according to recent research by Visible Measures, more than 20% of us click away within the first 10 seconds of a video. At 90 seconds more than half of all viewers have moved on.

They also cited a popular beer ad which had a 40% abandonment rate within the first 10 seconds - far above the norm. However, when the "narrative punchline" of the ad was revealed around the 12 second mark, the ad stabilized and outperformed other online video benchmarks. The chart below shows the timeline and abandonment percentages.

For the vast majority of people posting videos online these numbers will mean little. But for advertisers, filmmakers and others looking to see some return on their video investment, these numbers can help us craft short-form video content that improves performance by better understanding online audience viewing habits.

The key points to take away from this are:
1] Be prepared for at least half of online viewers to abandon your video before it finishes
2] Think hard about the first 10 seconds
3] Accelerate dramatic (narrative) momentum through the entire video


www.flatplanetfilms.com

DiY Distribution - Stepping into the Water

There has been a great deal of discussion in recent months about alternative ways filmmakers can raise money to produce their films (crowd funding), and distribute them once they've been made (DiY distribution).

As a producer these options are extremely interesting to me. Crowd-funding because it promises (at least in theory), to democratize the process of fund raising by allowing filmmakers with exceptional projects, and savvy teams, to raise the money for their projects. DiY distribution, because it offers producers a way to get their film in front of audiences, monetize their productions, and if handled correctly, pave the way for future projects.

With this in mind my colleague and I have made the decision to leap into the DiY distribution waters to see if we can find our way to the shore. The film we're distributing is a indie film about love, loss, and how we often get in our own way when navigating between the two.

Our reasons for undertaking this will be familiar to any indie producer. Though the film received some genuine interest from distributors - who saw potential with niche audiences - as the filmmakers we'd see little, if any, participation. So over the next several months we will be building and implementing a strategy to reach out to those niche audiences ourselves, and see how far we can take it. I'll be chronicling our progress here.

One thing I can already speak to is that DiY distribution is no easy task. We first started talking about the possibility of attempting this a couple of months ago. After conducting exhaustive research, we are still developing our strategy, determining costs and pricing, designing the web site, poster and packaging, and handling a myriad details.

While it's certainly true that any smart person can self distribute their film, it's a daunting process that many filmmakers may not be prepared for. First, there is a great deal of misinformation about what's actually involved, and how to approach it. The learning curve can be a steep one.

Second, we're finding that DiY distribution requires a pragmatic assessment of the film and market, a moderate financial commitment, an incredible amount of time, and a skill set that includes:

• project management
• marketing and demographics
• web development and SEO
• ecommerce and fulfillment
• editing (trailers and clips)
• writing (web, ad, pr, social media, and marketing copy)
• affiliate and client management

DiY distribution is eye opening in it's implications for financing and recouping investment, and exciting on many levels. I'll be posting about our progress.




www.flatplanetfilms.com

Film Finance Conferences, or How to Spend $175 to Learn in an Auditorium What is Ubiquitously Available On the Internet for Free

Right now... at this very moment... there are literally dozens of Film Finance Conferences being advertised to indie film communities. Many of these Film Finance Conferences charge hundreds of dollars for admission. Some operate under the venerable guise of the non-profit. One such conference — currently being promoted in several Indie Film Groups on LinkedIn — makes such outrageous claims it is clear the organizers primary goal is to separate young filmmakers from their cash.

Many Film Finance Conferences market themselves to filmmakers as a way to: Get Your Project in Front of Investors, Financiers, and Producers Who Can Get Your Project Made!! Few legitimately offer such opportunity. Fewer still provide any real world, practical, and actionable advice for indie filmmakers on how to finance their feature.

At one conference I attended a panelist billed as "an entertainment attorney who had negotiated several high profile projects," was to speak on the following topic: How the New Financial Climate Affects Fund-Raising for Film.

His wisdom to the filmmakers in attendance...? He read a printed list of film financing methods that included Gap, Supergap, Debt, Pre-sales, and Negative Pickups. Not one word on topic. Not one word about what made the deals he allegedly negotiated happen. Just a list of financing options that is available for free on dozens of sites across the web. He also managed to mention 5 times how vital it was for filmmakers to consult with an experienced entertainment attorney. Several dozen of his business cards were fanned out in front of him on the table.

Another panelist billed as "an expert on business plans who had secured millions of dollars of financing," was supposed to talk about what a good business plan should include, show examples, and explain the process. Instead he meandered across a panoply of topics including thoughts on restaurants and political candidates. His greatest moment of insight was to mention that tax incentives are very helpful to filmmakers.

Another speaker, when asked about how to raise money to make your film, suggested selling T-shirts.

All the while the "moderator," sat slumped in his chair without asking a single question or asking the speakers to clarify or go into more detail.

So are Film Finance Conferences worth the time and money? Can indie filmmakers walk away with solid ideas on how to get their films financed and get their projects in front of financiers and producers who can get their films made? Sadly, the answer is no — don't expect to ever get in front of people with money to invest.

Most Film Finance Conferences are designed to fill the pockets of the organizer by emptying yours... get you to purchase the products or services of the presenters... or outright scams.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Inside In Filmmaking

Over the years, Hollywood – like any other industry – has sought to minimize risk and maximize return so they can continue in business. They have done this by creating a star-driven, blockbuster, and marketing centric industry.

This made sense at first as (conspicuous) consumers love to hear about the glamorous world of stars, and getting the word out about a film is, after all, a necessity to drive ticket sales. However, like many things that were created for a specific purpose, this model has become corrupted over time.

This was evidenced most recently in the banal, Couples Retreat. In the making-of vignette shown on HBO, the stars and producers tell us how they chose the logistically complex, expensive location of Bora Bora in French Polynesia so the film “…would provide a sense of place and greater authenticity for the audience.” Really?

As a producer I am extremely sensitive to every element that goes into making a film from locations to wardrobe to the food we serve the hard working cast and crew. Every detail matters. But choosing Bora Bora as a location had nothing to do with the audience — a dozen equally beautiful and less costly locations could have been selected — and everything to do with providing a playground for the cast and producers. And there lies the problem.

In so many cases filmmakers — and not just Hollywood filmmakers, though they are often the most egregious — create their films from the inside, for the inside. A model that once helped promote the glamor of cinema has mutated into a virtual Panopticon, where the audience is studied by unseen guards from a central tower, placed in demographic cells, and then delivered films made to support the system, rather than entertain the audience.

What the producers should have done in the making-of vignette on HBO, is discuss how they eschewed a shoot in Bora Bora so they could craft a smart script and a comedy worth an $8 - $13 ticket.

Instead the disingenuous producers gave themselves an all expense paid, ten* week vacation on a tropical island, while subjecting the audience to a longer, more expensive retread of the sitcom they saw on Tuesday night. You know, the one where the sophomoric, wacky guys, do those sophomoric, wacky things that frustrate their too attractive wives, who then act all put upon, and do those supposedly more responsible, but equally wacky things that befuddle the sophomoric, wacky guys.

*Ten week shooting schedule is an estimate
www.flatplanetfilms.com

Bible Fragment - From Wasteland

Journal Entry #17

I was asked today if I believe angels exist.

It was the fat man again. Looking down at me in the way only a man convinced of his own intellectual superiority can look down on a taller man. He asked in that same condescending tone, without really expecting a reply.

Today I decided to give him one.

I stepped momentarily away from the world around us and spoke of angels; what they stood for, or rather, the meanings human beings ascribe to them. Words floated forward such as goodness, and light. Generic, unworkable concepts that tell us little of substance.

I spoke of magic and the supernatural — where basically anything can occur without reason or repercussion. I spoke of physics and the laws of nature — for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I spoke of duality, and of Lucifer — a fallen angel from the Christian pantheon and wondered: if one angel could fall, why not many?

As I watched the human beings swirl around us, oblivious to all but their own self interest, I verbalized the unasked question. If angels exist, then must not their opposite also exist? If there are things of light, then somewhere, must there not also be things of darkness? We recognize them perhaps as nothing more than a wisp of a feeling, but no matter how superior we feel, how advanced we become, this ancient feeling persists.

As adults we have become logical and pragmatic; we rationalize and compartmentalize. We have lost the flexibility of our young minds, and realize that if confronted by these dark things our minds would snap.

It's not the knife we fear, but the thought of the knife. It's not the odd, quiet neighbor that disturbs us, but the thought of what he may be doing in the basement of the house he's never invited us in to see. And in those thoughts, we wonder what it would mean to our perception of reality if one day, when we awoke, we found ourselves lying naked, bound and gagged in that basement, with our odd, quiet neighbor staring down at us. So we put those thoughts away.

It's why most of us cannot look at a person in a wheelchair, or stand to be near the infirm, and the insane — to do so brings us nearer those locked rooms in our minds. It's why we conform and consume, and cling to religions that assure us we are among those chosen to ascend. If people can rationalize something, then they can convince themselves they no longer need fear that something.

And yet that ancient whisper remains.

I was asked today if I believe angels exist. Stepping back into the world I turned to my questioner and asked a question of my own. Knowing what I just told you could be true — wouldn't it be best if they didn't?

As the pious, superiority slowly vanished from his face, he mumbled something about an appointment, and with a backward glance turned, and walked quickly away.

And as he disappeared into the crowd — plump thighs chafing with each hurried step — a thought came to me and I smiled. Perhaps I'll pay him a visit and put my theory to the test. I know where he lives.


From Jacob's Journal in Wasteland
Copyrighted material

Spending the Money - How to Get it Right

It’s a problem familiar to every independent producer - how to allocate limited resources so they have the greatest impact to the quality of the project.

No matter the budget, producers are often faced with the reality of fewer resources than hoped for. To create outstanding content, they must therefore concentrate on multiplying the value of the resources they have. Knowing how to do this, and when to spend the money to best effect is often difficult, but there are two factors we can focus on that are of disproportionate influence. These are time, and performance gain.

Time is the most important resource producers must manage. When deciding how to spend money, or allocate resources, it’s often the number one consideration. Spending money in ways that save time often translate to significant gains in quality and performance. The opposite also holds true – if the money being spent isn't creating incremental time gains, it almost certainly could be better spent in other areas.

Performance gain is the incremental improvement received with each dollar spent. The issue here is one of scale. How much better will the project be by spending a dollar in one area (locations, equipment, OT, etc.), as opposed to spending the same dollar somewhere else? Will spending that dollar create a better experience for the audience and stakeholders?

Making these decisions is as much an art as a science, but there is a simple rule of thumb that can help. When making these types of decisions I often use a very simple graph to help put things into perspective. On the X-axis is Time/Performance Gain, on the Y-axis is Resource Input (money, equipment, personnel). To illustrate I'll give an example.

On Welcome To Academia, we were shooting a very difficult scene at night, and approaching overtime, when the DP informed us we had a dead pixel on the camera. The choice was fix the pixel on set using the camera's software interface, or continue shooting and fix the dead pixel in post. Both alternatives had pros and cons.

Fixing the problem on set would take approximate 30 minutes while the crew stood idle and the clock ticked. Fixing it in post would allow us to keep shooting, but would require painting the affected area frame by frame. Depending on the action and length of the scenes, this could take a great deal of time. There was also the consideration of how a known problem with the footage would impact the cast and crew (on set this matters). So what was the better option?

When prepping the show, my producing partner,  Laura Cartwright, and I discussed this eventuality with our post house, and the camera techs at CSC in New York. We knew the rough cost-per-hour of fixing a dead pixel in post (it is impossible to determine exact time and costs until the footage is seen), and knew the precise cost of having our crew sit idle for 30 minutes, and the cost of each 30 minute period of OT. We decided to fix the camera on set.

On the surface it may seem as though idling the production would be the less efficient choice, but when all the variables were considered that was not the case.

As the chart at left shows, fixing the problem on set - under the circumstances we were in - was overwhelmingly the best choice. In a bad situation it made the best use of our resources because it gave us the highest time gain with the lowest resource investment.

It also gave us a chance to boost morale. While the camera department worked on the fix, the director rehearsed the last shots, and our wonderful craft service team whipped up some smoothies that cooled us down, and gumbo that restored our energy. 30 minutes later we were rolling cameras. Ultimately the scene looked phenomenal, and we made our day.

Deciding how to spend money comes down to deciding what actions consume the greatest amount of resources, while returning the smallest quality and performance gain. And conversely deciding which actions consume the least amount of resources, while returning the highest quality and performance gain.

Not easy choices, but when framed this way, producers can see beyond the stress of the moment to the bigger picture, and gain insight into how to direct resources so they make the greatest impact to the project, the team, the stakeholders, and ultimately the audience.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Connecting Content and Audience

As anyone who follows the media business (whether music, movies, publishing or TV) knows, they run on the premise that those in charge can predict the preferences of millions of individual people, and somehow create content that maximizes hits and minimizes flops. It is a business in which the top decision makers are paid extraordinary sums to provide those predictions about what the masses next want to see, hear, and read. In most cases those expensive predictions appear no better than guesses.

A growing body of research suggests that reliably predicting hits is impossible no matter how high up the totem pole someone is, or how much market research they have available. ^[1,2] And yet the process continues. Media executives make bets on future hits based on past hits, which is like making bets the next coin toss will come up heads because the previous one did.

Egregious examples of missed calls include the 8 publishers who passed on the Harry Potter novels; the studio that greenlit Land of the Lost; the networks that passed on Battle Star Galactica, and the record companies that blew off the Beatles. The list goes on, and what it tells us is this: when it comes to predicting what will succeed and fail in the media marketplace, William Goldman had it right, nobody knows anything.

And yet consumption of media continues to grow. A recent comScore study showed U.S. audiences watched more than 14.5 billion online videos in March of this year, up from 11.5 billion a year earlier. These numbers are staggering, and provide studios, networks, filmmakers, marketers, and content creators of all kinds an amazing opportunity. But what is it people are watching? What is it they are responding to and can that translate to other platforms?

In his excellent White Paper titled Distributed Influence: Quantifying the Impact of Social Media, Jonny Bentwood discusses what he calls the Arc of Influence, a model showing how topics spread, and influence causes action among different groups - those he calls influencers (people who lead the crowd) and influence-ables (people in their personal networks who follow their lead).

For influencers the Arc of Influence is:
1] Attention
How do influencers grab a user’s attention?
2] Engage
How does the influencer engage with the audience? Is it in an informative, entertaining, or challenging way?
3] Influence Is the content personal and relevant. i.e. Does it demonstrate need + context + timeliness?
4] Action Does the influencer inspire the individual to act?

For the influence-ables the Arc of Influence is:
1] Interest
The consumer identifies a need or interest in information
2] Fulfillment
The consumer seeks fulfillment from what they hope are credible sources (information, entertainment)
3] Review
The consumer evaluates the content provided
4] Action
The consumer forms or modifies their opinion and acts accordingly.

The chart below shows Bentwood's model graphically.

Viewed this way we see that while the context between the two groups is different, the end goal is unified. Influence isn't based on being predictive, it's based on delivering information that inspires action.

If we apply these same rules to the creation of content - replacing influencer with content creator, and influence-able with audience — we can draw some clear inferences. Content created to satisfy the internal goals of the creators has no intrinsic value. Content only has value when it appeals and has meaning to the macro environment viewing the content. 

To put it in the terms of the chart above, content creators must align their internal goal to 'grab the viewer's attention,' with the individual's interest; the internal goal to 'engage the viewer,' must align with the individual's goal to view satisfying content; the internal goal to 'influence behavior,' must pass the individual's evaluation of being credible, authentic and entertaining. In other words, , content succeeds when it satisfies the one person with the power to make or break it - the audience.
If the ultimate goal of a network program, online video or motion picture is to influence an audience (it is, even if the goal is to make us laugh), we must remember that "influence is only influence when it motivates people to act."^[1] To create that kind of result content creators must rethink how their content is made and who it is truly made for. They must be less concerned with predictions and attempts to recycle past successes - the media world moves far to quickly for that - and more concerned with creating quality content that engages passionately with audiences.

This doesn't mean we should ignore internal goals, we can't. It means only that we should pay more attention to the goals, interests, and motivations of the audience the content is being creating for, and remember the two most fundamental tenets of media...

- The audience is the client
- The individual is the audience

1. Bentwood, Jonny. Distributed Influence: Quantifying the Impact of Social Media. Edelman, 2008.
2. Mlodinow, Leonard. The Drunkard's Walk. Pantheon Books, 2006.
3. Kim, W. Chan, and Mauborgne, Renee. Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant. Harvard Business School Press, 2005.
4. Horn, John.Summer Movie Season Cooling Off. LA Times, 2009.




www.flatplanetfilms.com

A Story about Storytelling

The last several weeks I have been thinking about storytelling. This isn't difficult in NYC because there are stories unfolding before us - and behind us, below us, and above us — everywhere we go. They begin and end on buses and subways, in the streets and in the parks, in cabs, pubs, diners, and even Upper East Side high rises.

Most of the time we miss these stories because we walk the streets with our mask of disinterest set firmly in place (If you are a New Yorker, you know what I mean). Recently however, I decided to remove my mask. I decided to look around as I wandered the City and even make eye contact with people! [yes, this is actually legal in NYC].

What first struck me was the sheer number of stories being told. Everyone, it seemed, was telling a story — even those trying their hardest not to tell a thing.

The vast majority of these stories seemed of interest only to the person telling it (or screaming/ranting/proselytizing it as the case may be). These stories either didn't attract attention at all, or attracted attention just long enough for us to realize the need to move quickly away.

Other stories attracted the attention of small groups, but failed to grasp the interest of the majority of people. The people telling these stories sometimes got our attention with gimmicks - jumping up on mailboxes, or playing guitar in their underwear — but the attention of those gathered quickly waned when the surface of the story failed to achieve any depth.

And then there were the stories we simply couldn't ignore. These very rare stories did more than just attract attention, they actually stopped dozens, and even hundreds of people in their tracks, who became emotionally involved and truly invested in the outcome. These stories shared a remarkable simplicity, and yet created boundless wonder and empathy. What these stories did was connect us to the one thing we all share - our humanity.

Later, tired from my wanderings, I stopped into a pub famous for their Guinness pours. I thought about how good that beer was going to taste, and about how cute the bartender was (please don't say anything to her, I am feigning disinterest so she'll be attracted to me).

As my Guinness settled I put words to something we all subconsciously know about stories, but seem to forget in the quest to over-hype audiences into the theater.

Tell a poor story and find yourself alone.
Tell a good story and find yourself some friends.
Tell a great story and find yourself an audience.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Can a film end a disease?

Several weeks ago a wonderful person named Claire Collier passed away from ALS.

If you're not aware, ALS - often referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease - is a nuero-degenerative disease that robs people of the ability to speak, move, and care for themselves. It is at once agonizingly slow, taking years to completely pilfer a person's life, and blisteringly fast. Yet as horrible as the physical effects are, there is more to it.

Ask any person with ALS, and they will tell you one of the most frustrating things they endure is people seem to define them strictly by their disease.

In a recent conversation, a lawyer living with ALS explained: “People sometimes walk up to my wheelchair and without even looking at me will ask my nurse’s aide how I’m doing. They proceed to have a conversation about me as if I weren’t there… as if I didn’t really exist.”

ALS is a thief, but what it cannot do is rob people of their personality. It doesn't steal their love of friends and family, their desire to hug their kids, have a drink, tell a joke, scratch an itch, watch a ballgame or a movie, play poker, or be seen, heard and involved.

Claire was tireless, outgoing and funny. It was impossible not to feel welcome in her presence. She met with Senators to advocate for patient's rights, and toasted anyone who fought the fight. When she got too weak to hold a glass of wine she had her friends drop a straw in her glass.

Losing people like Claire to this disease is unacceptable, so we're doing something about it. The idea is called Project Right Angle and it's based on a fundamental insight that others seem to have missed.

Project Right Angle is a non-profit initiative being founded to raise awareness and enlighten public perception towards people living with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) and Muscular Dystrophy. It was founded on the notion that storytelling can do more than entertain -- it can inspire, transform and motivate action.

Our goal is to bring ALS research to the forefront of the public's attention by changing the paradigm by which messages are made, delivered and most importantly, received. We will do this through short, story-driven films about people with ALS distributed via the internet.

Because these short films (none longer than 3 minutes), tell stories about people instead of a disease, they are often humorous, sometimes irreverent, and always inspiring -- such as the young woman who maneuvers her wheelchair through a crowded mall looking for a bargain, but instead finds a most unlikely friend.

We've already got a dozen scripts ready to go, and a team of filmmakers ready to shoot. We're raising money to get this started right now. If you have something to say, or if you wish to help out financially, drop us a note. The official PRA web site will be launching soon, but in the mean time we can be reached at info@flatplanetfilms.com.

So, about the title of this post: Can a film end a disease? Unfortunately no. But the people who watch, share, and create the films can, and that's the point. We'll see you on set.


www.flatplanetfilms.com

Hard Questions & Ruthless Answers

At the core of every successful production, from multi-million dollar feature films to a viral videos streamed to the web, are the same fundamentals of story, strategy, scope, execution and impact. At the core of every savvy producer is an understanding of the relationships among these fundamentals, between them and around them.

When starting a new project the questions a producer asks are vital:

- What is the story we wish to tell?
- How will we tell it?
- Who is the audience?
- Why will these people respond?
- How will we reach them?
- What resources do we have available?
- How do we best use those scares resources?
- Who do we need on the team to make it happen?

Of equal or greater importance is the accuracy of our answers, and how we look at the process. This is where most productions break down.

Many producers, filmmakers, and financiers either fail to ask these questions at all, ask too late or fool themselves with their answers. They look at the each phase of a project (development, pre-production, production, post-production and distribution), as distinct entities to be tackled each in turn and one at a time. They prepare for one phase then proceed forward to the next with little thought to how each phase fits into the larger scope of the project.

So how should filmmakers view the process? How should they proceed?

Savvy producers understand that each phase of a project is a small piece belonging to a larger ecosystem, where each phase impacts the phases both before and after. Yes, before AND after.

The process of creating filmed media does not occur along a straight line, it's concentric. The chart below illustrates what I mean.




















Looking at the process this way gives us a more global view and the ability to develop a more comprehensive plan to reach project goals. But a good plan still requires asking hard questions and being ruthless with the answers we give ourselves.

The Antagonist in Film Business Plans - Revenue Projections

I recently participated in a discussion about the values and pitfalls of business plans for Indie filmmakers trying to attract equity investors. While they can contain relevant information about the project being developed, most film business plans also contain gross misinformation.

A business plan - when done well - helps convey a sense of professionalism in the project. As one participant concisely stated:

The business plan must be dispassionate in setting out the business proposition from an investment standpoint, covering "business" topics such as project description, key attachments, whether the production is bonded, how the investor's money will be cashflowed during production, producer's track record, prospects for domestic distribution and international sales, revenue guarantees (soft money, if any), proposal for recoupment of the investment and profit participation, tax considerations for investors, historical returns for films in the genre (a range! don't just point to those hoary chestnuts, Four Weddings and a Funeral and Blair Witch Project) and, depending on what kind of document it purports to be, legal boilerplate to satisfy securities regulators.

Most of the above mentioned items must be included in any business plan and a producer should know them regardless. My issue lies mostly with revenue projections and prospects for distribution many filmmakers include. The problem I see in most projections is that they are based on the tiny pool of films that actually secure distribution each year and ignore the hundreds (thousands) that don't.

For companies and producers that have existing distribution pipelines, those estimates hold some validity. For independent filmmakers and the financiers who back their films, they do not.

Showing that ten horror films released last year averaged $15mm in domestic theatrical gross revenues (arbitrary numbers), isn't painting an accurate picture to potential investors because it ignores the dozens (hundreds?) of other horror films made in that same time frame that didn't and won't earn a dime.

Most filmmaker's create business plans that mislead investors (whether purposely or due to their own ignorance), with overly rosy projections. Then they cover their asses by tossing in a risk clause.

So OK - caveat emptor (or caveat investor as the case may be). Investors must do their due diligence. But as a producer I take full responsibility for all business and financial matters on the films I produce and misleading the people trusting me with their hard earned money is not the way I want to start a business relationship.

When preparing a business plan for a feature film one must be accurate and forthcoming with projections. As a filmmaker that is an absolute obligation. The good news is that full disclosure won't dissuade someone if they are truly interested in your project. People with the fiscal strength to finance an independent film understand the relationship between risk and reward. And savvy investors will appreciate knowing they are working with someone with integrity who is watching out for their interests.

Quote used with permission of JBV Kelly.
Mr. Kelly can be reached at filmlaw@gmail.com

In The Company of Strangers

We live in a world where new media (whether purposefully designed to or not), is more and more often experienced alone or in very small groups. We plug in our headphones, stare at the tiny screen, close the door on neighbors and surroundings, and begin our solo trip.

One form of media however, doesn't fit this mold. Unlike most media, a theatrically released motion picture is designed to be seen with dozens or even hundreds of other people. Most of whom are strangers we will never know.

Yet there is something intimate and welcoming about the shared experience of sitting with hundreds of other moviegoers. I think it is a feeling of searching for community.

I've read recently that filmed media is moving away from the theatrical model, to a more intimate delivery model. I don't buy it. Plugging into our portable media devices doesn't create a more intimate filmed entertainment experience, it creates a more isolated experience. That may serve us well for a 20 minute subway ride, but is hardly how we want to spend a Saturday night.

Going to the movies is a ritual. We hear about a new movie, gather our friends and head out for a piece of the promised adventure. We arrive at the theater, buy our snacks, rush to grab our seats and glance around to see who will be traveling along with us. We welcome these other travelers because we somehow unconsciously know that whatever emotions we feel will be magnified by the collective group.

When the lights dim, our focus shifts. We sit there in the dark, staring up at the screen and at that moment anything is possible. The excitement builds because at that moment there exists the possibility we will leave behind the world around us and become a player in the world unfolding before us.

People love going to the movies. We go in good economic times and bad. We go with friends and family and lovers. We go for a thousand different reasons and with a single hope -- to share in a great story, well told.

When a movie works, it touches us individually, transports us collectively and involves us totally. When a movie works we exist together in another place. When a movie works we sit in the dark not as strangers, but as comrades sharing love and pain and triumph.

We only become strangers again when the lights go up.

How does a film like this get made?

It's become something of a tradition during the Holidays to see a movie with my family. The movie we chose this year was the remake of the sci fi classic The Day The Earth Stood Still, staring Keanu Reeves.

After doing our part to help the economy by buying a small fortune's worth of popcorn, drinks and candy, we sat down to enjoy the show. What a disappointment. This wasn't a remake. It was, as my brother pointed out, a chunk of stale Swiss cheese. He meant of course, that the plot was full of holes -- massive black holes.

I’m not going to go into all the shortcomings of this film - this isn’t a review – but I will give one example of the reaction of the audience. In what was supposed to be the turning point of the film where Keanu Reeves’s Klaatu decides mankind is worth saving after all, the young boy in the film weeps over his father’s gravestone. His mother comforts him and they have what was supposed to have been a tender moment of shared loss and connection. What we got instead was ham-fisted melodrama (the set up here strains credulity more than a Keanu Oscar nomination).

The problem is that during this "tender" moment, the mother was supposed to be helping Klaatu stop an immense and growing cloud of alien nano-bugs devouring everything in it’s path and killing untold thousands of people. Yet the hugging continues - interminably – delaying him from taking action. It's at this moment someone in the audience gives in to the frustration and calls out to the screen: “Hello? Humanity being destroyed! Can you hug later?” That was, unfortunately, one of the few entertaining moments of the film.

Discussing the film as we drove home from the theater my mother and sister asked how a film that bad could even get made. The question was meant rhetorically, but is worth looking into, as it speaks to an industry that seems to suffer from the same defect as the financial and auto industries - a total disconnect from (lack of respect for?) their customers.

This disconnect manifests itself in the creation of content in which good storytelling (the reason people actually go to movies), has fallen light-years behind marketing and packaging. This disconnect occurs when producers see audiences as interchangeable, amorphous marketing categories, instead of individuals.

The Hollywood formula seems to be based more than ever on the assumption bigger is better; that event films are the only films that work in the marketplace. My question is when did every weekend's release become an "event?" Like most things it happened gradually. It happened because studio chiefs believe the only way to attract people to theaters is to out scream the other screamers.

The Studios now design each film to appeal to a single audience -- everyone. In this bloated model the Studios try to reduce risk by engineering films that appeal to all four marketing quadrants (men, women, young, old). They try to reduce risk by hiring top actors at top dollar, then bomb the marketplace with every marketing and publicity trick in the book (supported by tens of millions of dollars).

Four Quadrant filmmaking creates a bland product that feels pre-chewed and prepackaged. We get less story, so to compensate the Studios add ingredients to distract us -- more effects, more cuts, more sounds, more colors, more sugar and bigger toys inside the box. Unfortunately, no matter how much sugar you sprinkle on crap, it still tastes like crap.

Many industries and companies have recently discovered the consequences of insular models that place their customer's needs and wants far down the list of priorities. Hollywood seems to have missed that revelation. They churn out mediocre content then blame the economy, foreign market barriers, the internet, piracy, the customers themselves (because we look for meaningful entertainment elsewhere), when their product fails to entertain. It's a far tougher thing to look in the mirror.

How does a movie like this get made? A movie like this gets made because focus groups have replaced creativity. It gets made because marketing has supplanted storytelling. It gets made because the Studios are under the mistaken belief that distracting the audience is the same as entertaining them.

Financing's Holy Trinity

The planet is in financial crisis. And since indie filmmaking occurs on this planet, it must also be in crisis - and not just because a fractious SAG strike looms.

I've read over and over how this crisis augers the death of indie film. That to me is the surest sign indie film is not dead. That to me is the surest sign the weak are simply jumping ship. Great! Jump already and get out of the way.

Clearly we are in an exceedingly difficult climate for indie films, but that is true of almost every industry. Remember $150 a barrel oil? That was less than 5 months ago. Internet bubbles? 6 years ago. The internet is now home to some of the most robust, viable business models on the planet. Oil is in the shithouse.

The point is that fads, booms and busts come and go - that's the cycle. People love jumping on boom and bust bandwagons, but these bandwagons are rarely as wonderful or dire as the experts predict.

Right now some are cleaning up in the housing market, just as others succeeded when the internet bubble collapsed. The common denominator was an ability to stayed focused on strong foundations. That lesson holds as true in filmmaking as for any other industry or profession.

Indie filmmakers are struggling - what's new - and looking for money - what else is new? Right now money is exceedingly tight. But if you have faith then you need only look to the holy trinity and you will be saved. No, not that holy trinity, that's a far more ruthless industry and a topic for a different blog. The trinity I am referring to are the three items needed to take you down the path towards financing.

What is the holy trinity? It's as simple as it is complicated:

- Originality: compelling, story-driven content
- A-list talent: or at least proven moneymakers
- Marketability: does the story have an audience and do you have viable ideas on how to reach them?

Certainly there are many layers to each of the above. A stunning performance by a newcomer can be both talent and marketability, but some things you need to figure out on your own.

Indie filmmaking is in crisis, yet even now there is money because even now audiences are clamoring for decent content. Want some of it for your project? Stay focused on the foundations. Write something phenomenal and marketable. It's that easy... and that difficult.

Strategic Alliances

Because our business is based on artistic creation, it’s important to be out in the world watching what people are reacting to, but it’s also important to constantly examine whether the world will continue to economically reward new movies. For this reason I make almost every decision within a strategic setting.

Each time I approach production I look not only at the script, but also at the long-term viability of the script and the film it will become in the future marketplace. This does not mean I am a slave to the trends or follow the herd. That’s not only foolish, it’s impossible. What it does mean is that I try to stay attuned to what people (audiences) are responding to and why. This makes both artistic and economic sense.

After all, when we produce a new film, we're undertaking a long-term project. The process can take years and each decision can have a profound impact on the final product. Those decisions will ultimately impact the audience’s like or dislike and it always comes back to the audience. Most of the time, what audiences want are the basics of good storytelling. This is a message too many filmmakers miss.

Because films are made in stages (development, pre-production, production, post and distribution), many producers approach each of these stages as separate entities that have no relationship to each other. That is a huge mistake.

The best producers understand the connection that every element (both artistic and economic), has to every other. I have heard some producers claim that the most important stage of a film is the stage they are currently working on. That compartmentalized view not only stagnates creativity, it's fiscally irresponsible. The simple truth is that there is no single most important part of filmmaking. Each phase is equally important and forgetting that impacts both the artistic and economic.

That’s why before I begin any new project I look out into the marketplace and try to visualize who the audience is and why they will respond. I also try to structure all of my ventures as strategic partnerships, not only in terms of the relationships with production companies and distributors, but as important, in terms of management. This way I’m more certain that everyone involved in the production shares a commonality of interest and no one party dominates. How do I go about this?

First, I define the stakes and make sure each party has equal representation and equal responsibility.

Second, I try to hire people who are entrepreneurial. That's often difficult when you're evaluating expertise but on Calling it Quits we spent significant time getting the right people, people like Roxy Gillespie, Mary Margaret O’Neil and Rich Ulivella. These are people who care deeply about their craft, their department, and also about the film they are making.

Occasionally the untalented, corrupt and sometimes even criminal folks slip through. When that inevitably happens, it’s important to take immediate action. If you stop the activity as soon as you become aware of it, it sends a message and shows the talented people who actually care about what they are doing that you also care about them.

The Good Fight

Hello all, it’s good to be back! Where was I you ask…? Well, for the past couple of months I was producing a wonderful independent feature titled: Calling it Quits. I had intended to post daily about the experience, but the workload as Producer, Line Producer and Production Manager (did I mention it was low budget?), took its toll on my time. As much as I love writing, my priority was the film, so I temporarily suspended my posts.

But now I’m back and have a lot to tell you. First and foremost I wanted to thank the director Anthony Tarsitano for writing such a wonderful script. His openness, confidence, and creativity were truly inspiring. I’d also like to thank my producing partner on this film - Jeanne Suggs. Jeanne is a smart, supportive and a wonderful collaborator. Together we spent the last several months assembling an amazing team of film professionals and producing what I believe will be a wonderful film.

Producing a film at any budget is hard work, but at the budget level we worked at the hard work is multiplied several times over. This is because you don’t have enough money to hire all the help you really need so end up wearing multiple hats.

I must say the hard work paid off. The quality of the performances and the production values on this film are truly exceptional. This is directly attributable to the talent of our cast and crew. I’ve worked on bigger budget shows with larger crews, but never have I worked with better. Time and time again the crew stepped up to create sets, wardrobe, lighting and sound design that would be exceptional at 10 times the budget.

As producer on a low budget film it’s a painful fact that you will have to make compromises and will never be able to pay talent what they are actually worth. But going in we were determined to treat the cast and crew as best we could on our budget, and make sure every cent we spent ended up on the screen. I think we succeeded.

It’s an amazing thing to see all your months of planning and prep and the dozens of individuals you hired come together in a well-run, successful production. We’re now firmly into editing and scoring and we’ve been fortunate to find some equally talented people to help us here as well. I can’t wait to see the final product. I’ll keep you informed of our progress.

Market to Individuals, Reach the World - Part II

In any business, marketing and innovation are critical elements for long term success. But when a business is based in large part on artistic creation, marketing and technology often take the place of an element much more important to long-term success – telling a story.

Motion pictures and other filmed media have a phenomenal heritage in this country, but like any other business films have to remain relevant to customer’s needs or those customers will move on. We saw this happen in 2005 when the product being delivered was so universally mediocre that audience stayed away and found other ways to entertain themselves.

The reason for this was not complex. Corporations are risk averse entities that like to control every aspect of the product they offer. The problem is that the one element that has the most to do with the success of a film is the one element you simply can’t put into a formula and that means risk.

Because telling a story can’t be quantified producers and studios have turned their focus almost entirely to marketing and technology. The inevitable march of technology means upgrading the technical process of making films both in the special effects that occur on screen and the equipment used to capture the sounds and images. As anyone who has made a film can attest to, this does not always equate to a less expensive or more streamlined process, or more importantly, a better film. Technology just seems to feed a need for more technology, which equates to higher costs.

Because the costs and risks are so high, they spend heavily on marketing to make sure the product is seen. The problem with selling a film this way is that the marketers is one of scale. At a time when people more and more wish to exert their individuality, producers and marketers are trying harder and harder to ram content that appeals to everyone down our throats.

After decades of this the film industry has mutated from a business based on storytelling to a business based on marketing. Most production companies and especially the studios now approach the process of developing new filmed media from an inside out perspective that is operationally driven, instead of from demand side.

This approach has lead to the circular reasoning that we now see in so much filmed entertainment. Producers and studios sink huge sums into elements of the film they hope will protect their massive investments (stars, directors, tons of equipment), and find with each new film those elements cost more and more. They use focus groups and exit interviews to “ensure” a film will perform well enough to justify the cost of production but what they are really doing is testing the film’s marketing hook and providing a false sense of assurance.

Marketers will counter saying focus groups and exit interviews demonstrate a consumer centric viewpoint, but reasoning is flawed. Anyone who has ever conducted focus groups or exit interviews will tell you that people only answer the questions given. How can you possibly learn anything about what a consumer wants by watching them sit in a room surrounded by strangers?

When consumers respond to questions about what they want they usually answer more for less. More effects, more stars, etc. They do this because it’s what they see and know; because it’ what they’re asked. Producers and executives look at this data and develop projects designed to match the “research,” and continue to miss the boat. To truly understand what consumers want producers need to get out into the field and take a more anthropological approach to marketing. They need to observe more and listen more and place more resources into development.

The disconnect we are seeing between media and audiences is self-induced. Massive spending on production dictates that they must try to make films that are all things to all people. When we start looking at people as individuals and delivering stories with universal messages and great stories that connect to people emotionally, then we can manage the money and deliver fantastic entertainment on a budget. Then we can deliver a quieter message that the film exists and is something they might find enjoyable.