Zev–Yeah, it’s a saturated field already, but it’s all in how the fan base is built and the loyalty that you can trigger to your “brand” (not sure I like that word as it relates to filmmakers and their work, but we’re talking marketing, so I guess I should get over it). And I like your idea of connecting in June very much. And that’ll be Spanish wine of course.

The whole marketing concept, as you know, is something dear to my heart. And several people, including yourself have already touched upon ’several hats’ being worn as a necessity for filmmakers.

In the same way as one filmmaker wouldn’t be expected to undertake all the key, specialist roles, then marketing and distribution are areas where objective, planned and strategic input are essential if the film is going to be seen. They’re also roles that require as much creative and innovative drive as a filmmaker.

However, what works for one film won’t necessarily transfer across all productions. This is why it’s vital to discuss the whole marketing project at the start of development. From concept to marketplace, the sales and marketing plan needs as much development as the production. They have to work in synergy.

So many independent filmmakers in the past wouldn’t even budget a good stills photographer (this is obviously something dear to my heart) and end up having crap images to distribute. If the marketing materials haven’t even been decided upon – how can one sell the production?

I’m not convinced we can all wear several hats – nor am I convinced we need to. We just need to think of production crews as having PR/Marketing/distribution people involved from the outset. It’s product development.

Idea/story. Is anyone going to buy it? Make it. Sell it.

So often filmmakers fall into the trap of:

Idea/story. Make it. Is anyone going to buy it? Try and sell it.

The starving artist is not a good look.

The studios have been planning and organising their marketing strategies from day one. Does this compromise artistic integrity? In many cases, quite obviously it does. We see a conveyer belt approach to production genres. However, it doesn’t need to. For the independent business, production, filmmakers, being involved EARLY on is crucial.

I don’t subscribe to the rules of thumb currently being suggested that marketing funding requires 50% of budget either. These models are based on old, lack-lustre studio systems steeped in conventional approaches. The online marketing approach is very different. But there’s also a danger of falling into the trap of thinking that it’s free. Everything costs. The time online needs to be factored in too.

There’ve been some fab comments in this discussion. This is why it’s a great place to hang out.

Best wishes, Luke

But til that happens, I’d rather not think of an ideal future, as I have enough dealing with the very real present. There have always been more artists than the marketplace can support. Fame and fortune have always been fickle, art and money/power have always had a love-hate relationship, and landscapes have always continuously shifted. A new series of digital tools won’t change that, it just means that new opportunities and new obstacles have arisen. There will be those who can take advantage of the former and overcome the latter.

David–I couldn’t agree more about folding the backend into the whole producing picture. All that’s needed to convince a filmmaker is to go through an old model distribution rollout. Jon Reiss suggests adding a Producer of Distribution & Marketing to the mix who is on board from development on. Also, I agree, it’s always a balance between art and commerce–it’s just that the commerce can’t run away with it to the point that you lose your sights as a filmmaker–it happens all the time. BTW, your behind the scenes stuff on your DVD was also strong. You are one honest, look-you-in-the-eye dude who made an art film whether you like it or not (and I don’t care if it’s called MISSION X)!! Cheers.

Phil–I couldn’t agree more. If we can just survive the transition…

Fans of Film–What’s wrong with a sea of websites now or in the future if the filmmaker is able to build a huge fan base and direct it to the site? (Big “if” I realize). Distribution sites are fine (not sure if I’d call them “distribution’ sites) if indeed they only catalog and gather info about films and offer up this info for film lovers who can then order off of the filmmakers’ sites. I think the trouble starts with the gatekeeper or filtering part of it because then exclusivity rears its head and suddenly it becomes “important” to get listed on a site (or special sites) and if we’re not careful, then the price of being listed on the elite sites inches upward and very soon we could be back where we started. My point is that middlemen who can only work for a fee or a percentage in this day and digital age have to be watched closely or we might find ourselves still staring at red figures long after release (are you following the panels this year at SXSW?). Don’t get me wrong, your site is a good one and your optimism is great. I’m just nervous about elitism and the middlemen/businessmen mentality that has permeated this industry since it’s inception and what it has done (or more accurately hasn’t done) for the artform.

Andrew–I agree that distinctions of this sort are not helpful. A good film is a good film because it carries you along and invites you in and grabs your heart and perhaps your mind as well, leaving you somehow enriched in some small or large way. It runs the gamet of genres. And yes, I am familiar with OpenIndie. It’s a good idea and certainly has it’s place. The annual flat fee approach is a good one. It’ll be interesting to see how it progresses–I wish them the best.