7 ms·

So, I'll play the devils advocate. What exactly is the value proposition here? Are there people scouring the internet for certain indie movies? I like indie

by d4ft 17y ago

So, I'll play the devils advocate. What exactly is the value proposition here? Are there people scouring the internet for certain indie movies? I like indie movies, and I like the idea of rewarding the people who are behind them, but it is hard for me to imagine what an itunes for indie movies with a marketing spin (is that what we are talking about here?) is really going to accomplish. I have netflix. I can get a lot of movies from there, for cheap. (including many of the more famous indie films). I also have HBO, more cheap movies. Granted, they aren't indie movies, but I can't see my self spending extra money for movies by people I don't know and have heard nothing about. Maybe I just don't get it. So, I guess, could you explain a little more about what the niche you're filling is?

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Playing devils devils advocate, I think the "right" answer would be that you provide a more efficient market that existing distribution channels -- easier to access, more readily available information, freer access. Then you combine that with deeper engagement and virality that existing channels don't have (and one that actually works instead of sounds good on paper) That's probably the "right" answer. Not sure it's theirs, but it's how I would answer the objection if I were them.
- chrischen 17y ago
  That's a good answer. Our main goal is to get a lot little nuances right, as well as some big things. When you distribute online you'll get a bunch of services which offer the mechanism to online distribuion, but don't take proper advantage of the new web like social networks. There are people who scour the Internet for indie films. This usually takes place in scifi, horror, and documentary genres. I'll agree that most people wouldn't go around looking for indie films otherwise, especially if there is no price difference between a low budget indie and a hollywood blockbuster. However my main goal right now is to provide a service for the smaller indie films out there. Making commission off sales is an added bonus, but the main monetization effort is to provide a service for indie content producers, big or small. Now hopefully when we've built something great enough to make self distribution more viable option, hopefully better more mainstream-popular type films can make their way onto the platform. That's when it would be ideal to roll out an iTunes type store to let people discover content, and profit largely off of commision. I think YouTube is a great example of letting anyone find their audience. And I believe that if indie filmmakers go digital, they too can find a larger Audience, especially if we go social like YouTube.
- d4ft 17y ago
  Hi Daniel- I guess what my argument comes down to is this: if I were an indie director, given the choice, I would prefer to get my movies seen by more people, and make less money (at least in the beginning), than set a price and make people pay, which will inevitably decrease viewings. I think the best way to accomplish the former, would be to put it on youtube and promote it. Yes, casual browsers would be lost. But, with the pay-per-view model, we are not getting too many casual browsers anyway, since they have to pay. So, perhaps the best way to do such a thing would be to have a youtube for indie movies and just let them be free. Further, I also see problems with the distribution model. If we store these movies in the cloud, you need internet to watch them. That kind of sucks. If you store them locally, they take up a ton of space. That also sucks. If we can delete them after we watch and then download them later, that still necessitates an internet connection, and kind of sucks anyway. As a final note, I guess I haven't convinced myself either way, so thanks for playing along.
  - j_baker 17y ago
    More people != a good movie. I think a director is more likely to want a way to direct their movie at the audience it's intended for more than anything else.
    - chrischen 17y ago
      Exposure to more people increases the chances of someone interested seeing it. So unless your movie is a sex tape, I'd say it's desirable to have it seem by as many people as you can, as long as the cost isn't too much to distribute it for free.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Let me clarify a few things: a) this is a DRM-free digital downloads platform. When I said "store in the clouds," I meant that additionally they are stored on our servers so you can re-download them. b) Your point about giving away films for free is actually what indie filmmakers are saying. The person I consulted with specifically asked if I could let people pay what they want, and I've heard filmmakers on the internet talk about giving away films for free for exposure. This is also an example of the nuances to distributing online that I was talking about, that I will try to resolve for indie filmmakers. So on the platform, you can set your price to free if you wish. And one of the other features we want to offer is cross-upload (of trailers and promotional material) to Youtube/video sites. This way your film will get exposure to Youtube's userbase, but you retain all control of the full length film on our site.
chrischen 17y ago
My proposition is if we make it technically easy for films to take advantage of the benefits of digital self distribution, then good films will shift over to the new method. Then when they shift there will be competitive content for a marketplace. Until then, we can profit and sustain the service on those making the digital self distribution transition by focusing on charging publishers.

by d4ft 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Playing devils devils advocate, I think the "right" answer would be that you provide a more efficient market that existing distribution channels -- easier to access, more readily available information, freer access. Then you combine that with deeper engagement and virality that existing channels don't have (and one that actually works instead of sounds good on paper) That's probably the "right" answer. Not sure it's theirs, but it's how I would answer the objection if I were them.

chrischen 17y ago
That's a good answer. Our main goal is to get a lot little nuances right, as well as some big things. When you distribute online you'll get a bunch of services which offer the mechanism to online distribuion, but don't take proper advantage of the new web like social networks. There are people who scour the Internet for indie films. This usually takes place in scifi, horror, and documentary genres. I'll agree that most people wouldn't go around looking for indie films otherwise, especially if there is no price difference between a low budget indie and a hollywood blockbuster. However my main goal right now is to provide a service for the smaller indie films out there. Making commission off sales is an added bonus, but the main monetization effort is to provide a service for indie content producers, big or small. Now hopefully when we've built something great enough to make self distribution more viable option, hopefully better more mainstream-popular type films can make their way onto the platform. That's when it would be ideal to roll out an iTunes type store to let people discover content, and profit largely off of commision. I think YouTube is a great example of letting anyone find their audience. And I believe that if indie filmmakers go digital, they too can find a larger Audience, especially if we go social like YouTube.
d4ft 17y ago
Hi Daniel- I guess what my argument comes down to is this: if I were an indie director, given the choice, I would prefer to get my movies seen by more people, and make less money (at least in the beginning), than set a price and make people pay, which will inevitably decrease viewings. I think the best way to accomplish the former, would be to put it on youtube and promote it. Yes, casual browsers would be lost. But, with the pay-per-view model, we are not getting too many casual browsers anyway, since they have to pay. So, perhaps the best way to do such a thing would be to have a youtube for indie movies and just let them be free. Further, I also see problems with the distribution model. If we store these movies in the cloud, you need internet to watch them. That kind of sucks. If you store them locally, they take up a ton of space. That also sucks. If we can delete them after we watch and then download them later, that still necessitates an internet connection, and kind of sucks anyway. As a final note, I guess I haven't convinced myself either way, so thanks for playing along.
- j_baker 17y ago
  More people != a good movie. I think a director is more likely to want a way to direct their movie at the audience it's intended for more than anything else.
  - chrischen 17y ago
    Exposure to more people increases the chances of someone interested seeing it. So unless your movie is a sex tape, I'd say it's desirable to have it seem by as many people as you can, as long as the cost isn't too much to distribute it for free.
- chrischen 17y ago
  Let me clarify a few things: a) this is a DRM-free digital downloads platform. When I said "store in the clouds," I meant that additionally they are stored on our servers so you can re-download them. b) Your point about giving away films for free is actually what indie filmmakers are saying. The person I consulted with specifically asked if I could let people pay what they want, and I've heard filmmakers on the internet talk about giving away films for free for exposure. This is also an example of the nuances to distributing online that I was talking about, that I will try to resolve for indie filmmakers. So on the platform, you can set your price to free if you wish. And one of the other features we want to offer is cross-upload (of trailers and promotional material) to Youtube/video sites. This way your film will get exposure to Youtube's userbase, but you retain all control of the full length film on our site.

chrischen 17y ago

My proposition is if we make it technically easy for films to take advantage of the benefits of digital self distribution, then good films will shift over to the new method. Then when they shift there will be competitive content for a marketplace. Until then, we can profit and sustain the service on those making the digital self distribution transition by focusing on charging publishers.