Variety’s Peter Bart says The Godfather would never be greenlit today

2010
02.04

Last night I had the privilege of listening to Variety’s Peter Bart at the UCLA Anderson Entertainment Management Association Career Night. SocialNotions was invited to come and share what we know about marketing and the entertainment business with business with MBA students. In all, the event was great for meeting enthusiastic potential future employees, but also for meeting and reconnecting with our friends from the studios.

I have to come back to Peter Bart, though, because of all the things I heard people say last night, his comments left the deepest impression on me. I’ve paraphrased a few of those here for your enjoyment and because I think they speak to the heart of the issues plaguing the industry. I may add some editorial content later, but for now just wanted to get this out so you can also enjoy it!

The GodFather comment:

Great films from The Godfather era were only made because the studio was so poorly run and producers could get such wonderful projects to pass through the cracks. In today’s corporate version of Hollywood, that never would have happened. The project would have been halted in its tracks before it ever got to pre-production.

On where things stand:

Blame layoffs on the corporatization of Hollywood. It’s not demand, which is high, it’s the fact that the industry has become a corporate machine… and an inefficient one at that. In the 70’s, when we were making great films like The Godfather, I’d call a meeting and maybe 3 or 4 people would show up… now, those same meetings would have 50 or 60 people in them!

The majors don’t want a hand in Indie… witness Disney’s trying to sell Miramax; [On a side note, did you see the news yesterday that the Weinsteins are poised to buy it back! There's a link below..]

Although Sundance had a good year, the circle of buyers is much smaller than it was in the past. What we’re left with is a smattering of unknown indie distributors and the unknown world of self-distribution

Most of the nominated pics are Indies, but does this mean the industry is healthy? No, just that the success stories (i.e. the Precious’es of the world) are an accident of history and are not a model we can follow.

On financing:

Hollywood money is always coming from different sources… whether it’s private equity, the Germans or someone else, God Bless the people who are seduced by and invest in film for whatever reason, be it the promise of fame, Hollywood glamor or something else. They will always be there. Is there a better long term solution? Maybe raising money overseas and pre-selling international…

On the tent-pole leanings of the studios:

Artists will always yearn for good art, and you’ll find the best funding their creative exploits by doing the broad commercial fare for the studios and then turning their attention to more creative and intellectually stimulating efforts.

On digital distribution:

I don’t believe we’re there yet. I think that we are 10 years away from a meaningful, viable manner of web-based distribution. Theatrical is still king.

On the performance of indie flicks in the cinemas:

I was talking with the President of Landmark Theaters recently, and he told me that the arthouse business is about the same size as it was the year before, but that to get there they had to distribute twice as many pictures.

What do you think? Think he’s right? Lemme know….

-D

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • Share/Bookmark

Aardvark following in Google’s footsteps?

2010
02.02
Image representing Aardvark as depicted in Cru...
Image via CrunchBase

Today, social search jocks Aardvark published a research paper entitled Anatomy of a Large-Scale Social Search Engine that looks at the science of how people find things with help from other people.

Aardvark and juvenile.
Image via Wikipedia

According to Damon from Aardvark, the “paper was inspired by the classic Google paper, “Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine”, in which Sergey Brin and Larry Page originally describe the algorithms and architecture of Google. This paper was published 12 years ago in the same WWW conference.”

One of the most interesting points made in this paper is that the subjective way in which we often ask questions is better served by social search than it is by web search. Makes sense to me, especially with those questions we’re trying to answer that

require interpretation of context. Also curious are the findings that the v

ast majority of questions (almost 90%) get answered, with a decent amount of answers (70%) earning a “good” rating…. not bad if you ask me.

So, how credible is the paper? Well, it was co-authored by Sep Kamvar, founder of search company

Kaltix (later acquired by Google) and previous head of Personalized Search at Google, now Professor at Stanford. I’m no academic, but that seems pretty damn credible to me! Think it has anything to do with Sergey and Larry dumping enough shares last week for them to relinquish their majority voting rights? You tell me… ;)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • Share/Bookmark

Upcoming iBreakfastLA Event: Creators, Consumer & Content

2009
11.09

AJ_ahlo tightWell, it’s been a little while… perhaps too long, I know.

But it’s back folks!! iBreakfastLA is coming to you at the usual time on November 18th, 2009. Join us for the usual great conversation and delicious breakfast at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management.

We’re very excited about the panel and the topic, and personally, I think this might be the best one of the year!

Register now before tickets get sold out!  You can also check out the event page here.

See you there! D

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • Share/Bookmark

OpenIndie is pioneering a new distribution model… will it work?

2009
10.28

For the last few weeks I’ve been following – with great excitement – the efforts of Arin Crumley (of Four Eyed Monsters fame) and his business partner, Kieran Masterton, as they try to raise money for their new venture. It’s kickstarter windowcalled OpenIndie, and if successful, will open a world of possibilities for independent filmmakers desperate to get their films in the hands of their audience.

Arin is an interesting guy to begin with, but what’s really cool about OpenIndie is their dogged devotion to democratizing access to film product and their belief in the conviction of their supporters. To raise the $10,000 they need to get the website up and running they’ve turned to Kickstarter, a “funding platform for artists, designers, filmmakers, musicians, journalists, inventors, explorers…”. They have until October 29th to raise their target, and if they don’t hit 10k then they get nothing! A little harsh perhaps, but Arin is very humble (as if we needed another reason to like this guy) in saying that if they don’t reach the goal, then perhaps it’s because there’s not really a need for something like OpenIndie. I think we all know there is, and with a little under 36 hours to go, they have only $202.69 to go, so it’s looking good!

What Arin and Kieran are trying to do is brave, necessary and close to our hearts here at SocialNotions. Starting in early January, we’ll be contributing to a Strategic Management Research project at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management that aims to map the entire marketing, distribution and exhibition landscape of Independent Film. As part of this effort, the team will be developing strategic recommendations for filmmakers who want to know how they can locate and access their film-loving audience in a more cost-effective and compelling way, given the current state of the industry. We’re really excited about this effort and will keep you posted as it gets underway….

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with Arin as he explains what it is they’re trying to do with OpenIndie. All I can say is…. Bravo!

What do you guys think? Is there something here, or are they clutching at straws? Love to know what you think, as always.

-d

  • Share/Bookmark

Did Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis get it wrong?

2009
10.24

[This entry is a repost from Alan Brody's iBreakfast blog]

mahalo_logoEditor’s Note: with all the talk about a re-awakening in the funding market for new ventures, I thought it fitting to re-post this very well-written and insightful article from our friend and iBreakfast partner in New York City, Alan Brody. It’s a rebuttal to Jason’s recent attack on Mike Segal of Private Equity Forums and other forums who charge entrepreneurs for access to investors. Although Jason’s rant appeals to my philosophical sensibilities, I have to say that Alan makes some very good points, and can’t help but wonder whether Jason’s perspective is a little too narrow on this topic.

 I know Mike Segal of Private Equity Forums and we even promote his events. So let me stick up for him in this way: his events bring out-of-town investors and entrepreneurs to New York. That is his strong suit and has been doing that well for years, filling up room after room with investors and entrepreneurs. He deals with what I call pedigreed starts-ups: people who have serious experience in their fields, have put a good amount of money into it and can afford to pay to be in this league. Dotcoms are a small part of his world – most of his Entrepreneurs have biotech, heavy engineering, energy, packaged goods or financial services businesses.

These obey very different rules from the digital world that Jason and his cohort inhabit – so before we get into some version of class war let’s understand that we are dealing with other classes of new enterprise.

As the organizer of the iBreakfast I should state that we run very modestly-priced start-up events and we give our winning entrepreneurs tickets to Mike Segal’s events so they can see what his world looks like. Some of it is familiar but a lot of it is very different – his investors usually look for revenue, tangible assets, assumable debt and a host of things dotcom start-ups are oblivious to.

I can’t argue with Jason or anyone that access to investors ought to be Free. Why not? If Fred Wilson or Steve Jurvetson wants to see you – go ahead. They might even throw in a Vitamin Water or buy you lunch. But unless you’re a serial entrepreneur and were recommended to them, the chances are the don’t want to see you. So events like Mike Segal’s and to some extent, the iBreakfast have emerged put you right in front of investors and get you into the general recommendation system. By organizing it into a marketplace they are entitled to charge what the market will bear. In that respect Mike is no different from a trade show producer or the Wall Street broker that takes his commission and the spread.

If you think he is charging too much – don’t pay. The iBreakfast offers a low-cost pitching event that grooms, educates and gives start-ups access to investors for a nominal $125. We don’t market it like crazy but then we also don’t pack dozens and dozens of investors into one place. So take your pick. As for the groups that do it more or less free, go to them – but they are probably oversubscribed and they’ll make you wait.

So, should one approach drive out the other or should all of these coexist?

If Jason can attract Investors and Entrepreneurs from all over the region – or the country to an event, do it on a regular basis and give it away for Free, I say more power to him. I might have a plan or two I’d like to trot out myself.

But keep in mind a few things. Free often drives out the good. Without a financial incentive there is a good chance the forum will run out of steam. Even if the forum continues, they still have to add some kind of value that makes it worthwhile for the investors to show up and for the best pitches to rise to the top. If they can do that, Free may win. Even so, many companies would still rather pay for all kinds of reasons like speed to the investor market or controlling their destiny.

A big question is why would Jason do it for Free. I buy his “sticking up for the hood” motive up to a point, but the real deal is publicity for his Mahalo “people powered” pedicab of a search engine, he needs to attract contributors, fire up his base them up and make them feel important.

As for the profit motive, well excuse me, Jason had no trouble charging over $1,000 for his Silicon Alley conferences when he could – thereby keeping good information and contacts away from the needy. Tech Crunch 50 is not Free. So why should these organizers behave differently? If Mike Segal can save his Entrepreneurs from traveling all over the country just to see investors and get the word out at once, then there is a value in it. Something like a road show in one place. Plus, many investors take this kind of effort seriously and see this as separating these Entrepreneurs from the pack – those which just can’t afford the effort and therefore may not be as viable.

That’s why these events take place at fancy ballrooms and not at a taco stand – it makes people take these presentations seriously. Maybe the investor should be paying for the lunch but the market dictates otherwise. Trust me, the doctor who just prescribed Jason his self-righteousness pills didn’t pay for his own lunch either if he didn’t want to. The drug company was happy to pick up that tab. More importantly, if an Entrepreneur is flying in from Minneapolis, Free starts to look very iffy while a paid event says “this is happening” and his time and travel costs will not be wasted on a flake out. Likewise, investors realize their time is unlikely to be wasted by people who are not really committed to their new enterprise.

Having said all that, I actually welcome Free because it forces the paid guys to do a better job or else. Plus it gives the posers a chance to discover their real selves before they do something silly like empty their trust funds.

As to which approach is really better – let’s say they are different and serve different purposes that may ultimately harmonize. A free event favors just-out-of-college start-ups with those big moonshot ideas like the next Twitter, iPhone Killer App or Search Engine (know of any?) Few succeed but the ones that do, make it really big. They change the world.

Paid events favor the seasoned player – the pedigreed start-up that has 10 years of experience in a field, often a mundane one where they see the real opportunity in their space, know the players, the customers and so on. There is less pizzazz and few ground-shaking ideas. The payoff is more earthly but to the investor, is also a safer bet.

The true serial (and successful) entrepreneur which includes Jason, only has to pick up the phone. The sensible entrepreneur has to know which category they belong in before they choose their path but they all have their place.

My prediction – a year from now, all these forums will exists in one way or another. All will do a better job and all will charge about the same – even the Free.

- written by Alan Brody, CEO iBreakfast

  

 

  • Share/Bookmark

CBS notices that “Famous Teens Unplug”

2009
10.12

aria_wallace__aka_roxy_hunter__performs_at_toronto_eaton_center_for_the_launch_of_la_senza_girl_s_roxy_hunter_line_of_clothing_5197349_editedCBS reporter Shira Lazar from “On the Scene with Shira” picked up our story around Aria Wallace’s 40 Day Challenge, which started today. If you haven’t already heard, Aria’s going to be ditching her cell phone and vlogging the experience of doing without it, all in an attempt to raise awareness and encourage tweens and teens to use technology responsibly. In Shira’s post, she wonders if this might well be the beginning of a trend, with Miley Cyrus recently also making a statement by ditching Twitter.

“…could [Millenials] be making a conscious decision to go back to basics? Is cutting the digital chord just a trend or is this the beginning of a new movement? I recently caught up with 12-year old, Aria Wallace, who many tweens might recognize from the popular Nickelodeon TV show, iCarly. Today she begins a 40-day mission to be completely unplugged. The Going Old School campaign is in conjunction with the Temptation of a Generation book series, which takes on issues including cyber-bullying and sexting.”

Here’s Shira’s interview with Aria:


Watch CBS News Videos Online

We’re obviously excited about Aria’s campaign and hope you’ll join us in following her over the next forty days. Here’s her first vlog entry, which captures Aria bidding farewell to her beloved cellphone… she’s such a card!

We hope you’ll tell your friends and family about the campaign – it should be a lot of fun. Stay tuned…

-D

  • Share/Bookmark

Filmmakers need social media… now more than ever!

2009
10.11

This weekend I had the privilege of sitting on a prestigious panel at Film Independent’s Filmmaker’s Forum event. The opportunity came up at the last minute, and after getting the call late Friday, was quite chuffed to take my seat on the main stage at the Director’s Guild on Saturday evening, flanked by no less than four of the most influential people in the movie business.

Not being a Hollywood vet (by any stretch of the imagination), I have to say I was a little nervous, but also excited, about the pending conversation as we went through the usual LA schpiel of having photographs taken in front of the proverbial publicity panel and taking our places on stage. To my left sat Richard Klubeck, head of business affairs for the motion picture department at UTA.  To my immediate right was Michael London, CEO of Groundswell Productions and famed producer of Sideways, Smart People and host of other great flicks. To his right sat Oscar-winning producer (and current Mandalay Pictures President) Cathy Schulman (Crash, Darfur Now), and to her right, The New York Times Hollywood correspondent and industry vet, Michael Cieply.

Debating the future of Indie flicks

Debating the future of Indie flicks

So what was I doing in the company of these industry giants… well, call it a case of serendipty (or perhaps just dumb luck), but it turns out the industry is really searching for answers about what the future of marketing will look like for studios and independent filmmakers alike, and this just happens to be the area we’re focusing on at SocialNotions. This is what I learned from our short time together:

  • Yes, the industry is in a state of flux – perhaps even massive flux – but the market for traditional movie viewing format of kicking back in comfy chair in a large dark room with a massive screen and 200 strangers isn’t going anywhere. There may be less variety on offer in theatrical these days, but economic downturn aside, titles with mass market appeal are still doing well.
  • The news for independent producers vis-a-vis funding is not great… gone are the days of coming up with a great idea and having a ton of people clamoring to give you heaps of money to make it a reality.  It reminded me a little of the start-up market in Silicon Valley these days, where angels and bootstrapping are the words of the day.
  • The pioneers are out there, and continue to surface. Guys like Arin Crumley of Four Eyed Monsters fame, and Lizzie Gillett from The Age of Stupid should be lauded for their efforts.
  • DIY is a topic bandied about when it comes to how Indie filmmakers have to operate these days, but really the right model for these times is not DIY, but rather DIWO (do-it-with-others), with collaboration among and between filmmakers and film-lovers powering the act of conceiving of and bringing to market a wide variety of films people want to see.
  • Although the Internet nand online video is still, in many ways, a poor cousin to film and television in its traditional form, it won’t be for long. Within 3-5 years we’ll stop talking about these things as though they’re different media, and instead see them for what they will soon be… different sized screens.
  • Hollywood still seems to think that social media is only for the young, and that despite GenY slated to outnumber the Boomers within a year, most people other than the Millenials and Generation Z aren’t doing the whole online thing. For my money, I’m not so sure this is the right way to look at the world… you only have to take note of the fact that Facebook’s fastest growing demographic is Females 55-65 years old to realize that it ain’t just for the young ‘uns.
  • Hollywood’s business leaders are smart, talented individuals who grasp just how important finding one’s audience online is – even for the purpose of marketing traditional format motion pictures – but the industries digital marketing teams continue to have a collective blank stare when it comes to tackling this problem. And it’s not like there are people rushing to their rescue from Silicon Valley either. Yes, there are some innovators, but this problem is still largely unsolved.
Filmmakerare dying for a better way to find their audience online

Filmmakers are dying for a better way to find their audience online

We also discussed Paranormal Activity and the innovative model they’ve adopted, asking cities to petition for the chance to see the flick. This is a definite step in the right direction if you ask me, and if Arin and Susan (Four Eyed Monsters) hadn’t done it a couple years ago – out of pure necessity I might add – would be a wonderfully innovative marketing move. It’ll be interesting to see how Paramount’s experiment with Paranormal plays out and whether, as some cynics postulate, this is a “look, we’re cool too” marketing gimmick on the part of a studio as opposed to a genuine development in the way movies are being promoted.

While at the Forum, I took in the chance to hear from other pioneering Indie producers, and was lucky enough to sit in on a (Skype-based) interview with Lizzie Gillett from London, one of the tireless souls who made The Age of Stupid happen. Another wonderful example cutting edge independent film production, marketing, distribution and exhibition. Proof that, for passion areas at least, crowdfunding and ground-breaking theatrical innovation are still very possible, albeit with a lot of work.

So, what’s next for Indie? Well, you’ll get no predictions from me on that front… I leave it to those with the industry cred to back up a forecast. I will say this though: to me it smells a lot like social media. Your nose picking that up too?

-D

P.S. Huge thanks to Dawn Hudson from Film Independent for letting me crash the party.

  • Share/Bookmark

Sorry Mashable, but you’re wrong about Whole Foods. Celebrity does not equal competence.

2009
09.21

In his recent Mashable post, Soren Gordhamer highlights “5 Social Media Lessons from Whole Foods”, and starts off by proclaiming that they have “impressively embraced social media more than most”. As evidence, he points out that they’ve amassed more than 1.2 million Twitter followers and more than 123,000 fans on Facebook…. which brings me to the point of this short entry/rant. Why does there seem to be this pervasive confusion that social media celebrity and social media competence are one in the same?

Time to change the logo?

Time to change the logo?

Allow me to explain… imagine you were invited to a cocktail party hosted in the Rose Garden by Barack Obama and the first family. And imagine this party was attended by society’s elite, including business and world leaders from across the globe. Now imagine you were asked to attend and were very excited by the idea that you’d get to shake hands with the world’s most powerful people, and that you were determined to make a good first impression that would have lasting positive implications for your business and personal lives. So, this being the case, which of these scenarios would demonstrated a higher level of social intelligence?:

a. You show up looking (and smelling) drunk and disheveled, boorishly fawn over the female guests while mumbling inappropriate commentary about Mrs. Biden’s cleavage, wind up dancing on the tables and finish the evening by skinny dipping in the Reflecting Pool. You’ve been thrown out with everyone watching, and they all know who you are.

b. You show up dressed impeccably, wowing the guests with your charm, wit and manners. You discreetly mention your occupation, but only when asked, and promise to follow up, but only when asked. You leave having engaged meaningfully with only 20% of the guest. Each of which, however, has a lasting positive impression of you, and is now formally an acquaintance.

Similarly, which of a or b would create greater celebrity for yourself?  I think we all know the answer to that…

So, back to Whole Foods then. Perhaps they’ve done a decent job of achieving social media celebrity, and indeed they have cottoned onto something substantial in the concept of organic, unprocessed food, but I personally feel that saying their use of social media is impressive is grossly inaccurate. Why? Because, quite simply, it’s SOCIAL media and not social MEDIA, and being impressive in one’s use of it requires that one is impressive when it comes to one’s social IQ… something Whole Foods is decidedly not, starting at the top.

Social Media Faux Pas  #1: Lying about who you are

Social Dummy?

Social Dummy?

Back in 2005, the a series of posts bashing retailer Wild Oats appeared on a Yahoo! Forums board under the name Rahodeb. “Would Whole Foods buy OATS? Almost surely not at current prices. What would they gain? OATS locations are too small.” Rahodeb speculated that Wild Oats eventually would be sold after sliding into bankruptcy or when its stock fell below $5. A month later, Rahodeb wrote that Wild Oats management “clearly doesn’t know what it is doing. . . . OATS has no value and no future.” Thing is… Rohodeb was actually John Mackey, Whole Foods CEO. Uncool… very uncool. And when challenged, this was his response:

“I posted on Yahoo! under a pseudonym because I had fun doing it. Many people post on bulletin boards using pseudonyms.” He said that “I never intended any of those postings to be identified with me.” “The views articulated by rahodeb sometimes represent what I actually believed and sometimes they didn’t. Sometimes I simply played ‘devil’s advocate’ for the sheer fun of arguing. Anyone who knows me realizes that I frequently do this in person, too.

Social Media Faux Pas #2: Publicly Shunning Your Primary Segment

On August 12th, 2009 John Mackey wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial quoting Margaret Thatcher and suggesting that healthcare is a commodity that only the rich, like him, deserve. In retaliation, the very community Mackey has been relying on to pay his exorbitant prices even when they can’t really afford it,  established one of the fastest growing groups in Facebook history: “Boycott Whole Foods”. Last count: 34,213 members and growing… Again, not exactly a shining demonstration of a high social IQ.

So how do I account for the massive following Whole Foods have online if their social media strategy is crap? It’s simple… their success has nothing to do with social media or Whole Foods. It has to do with a population intent on overspending on food so that they can convince themselves they’re healthy. By co-opting the “we shop at Whole Foods” message, people are trying to tell a story about themselves to themselves (as Rob Walker would be proud of me saying :) ).

I’d love to hear about other examples of so-called experts confusing celebrity with competence. Please chime in with your thoughts….

-D

P.S. Trader Joe’s is the sh*t! ;)

  • Share/Bookmark

Facebook determined to beat the Twit out of you

2009
09.12

Beaten Twitter Bird

A new post by Facebook engineer Tom Occhino today announces Facebook’s adoption of the @-symbol call-out most commonly associated with Twitter users:

Now, when you are writing a status update and want to add a friend’s name to something you are posting, just include the “@” symbol beforehand. As you type the name of what you would like to reference, a drop-down menu will appear that allows you to choose from your list of friends and other connections, including groups, events, applications and Pages. Soon, you’ll be able to tag friends from applications as well. The “@” symbol will not be displayed in the published status update or post after you’ve added your tags.

It’s no secret that Facebook has been desperately trying to muscle-in on Twitter’s lifestream concept; now it’s appropriating the very conventions of Twitter.

via Facebook | Tag Friends in Your Status and Posts.

  • Share/Bookmark

Executives and Social Media

2009
09.10

According to Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law, the vast majority of executives see value in social media– particularly in company branding:

Value of Social Media to Executives

This focus on brand-building strikes me as being similar to the US’ attempts at nation-building in countries like Somalia and Iraq: it sounds great on paper until you try to dispense with the conceptual framework and find measurable indicators of success. How is the effectiveness at brand-building to be determined over social media tools? (And are we too preoccupied with the tyranny of the click in even wanting such granularity? The lack of metrics inherent to brand-building never stopped anyone from taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times.)

It is also telling that executives see a number of corollary benefits to social media, several of which relate to their employees:

More than eight in 10 management, marketing and HR executives responding to the July 2009 survey cited relationship- and brand-building as benefits of social media. Execs also considered social media a good tool for recruitment (69%) and customer service (64%), and 46% thought it enhanced employee morale.

Will social media evolve into a critical internal function which will unseat the interoffice newsletter as the dominant form of interaction within an organization?

via Executives and Social Media – eMarketer .

  • Share/Bookmark