The problem with the entertainment industry is that it often confuses adding multiple layers to 2 dimensional thinking with 3 dimensional thinking. This is why there is a huge falloff in entertainment revenue, even though entertainment CONSUMPTION is high.

The lifeblood of the internet is advertising. Because you are reaching huge audience with low overhead. The entertainment industry has typically survived by charging people for entry. Pay per unit, pay per ticket, etc. The model is clear. Pay 1 dollar for something, add $3 in value to it, charge $20 for it. Well, now less people have the $20 for your crappy $3 product, so sales will fall off. Add to this the fact that there is an internet where one can be entertained for FREE (or at least it feels free), and you have your revolution.

You can't go to a market where people are getting things for free and ask them to pay for it all. That's just silly. However. Someone IS paying, every day, billions of dollars. Advertisers.

What's killing the bottom line in theatrical releases? Advertising. You have to out-market another picture in order to get that first week advantage, and if you don't get it, your picture is done. A $100M picture has to have around $20M in advertising to drive people to see it. So of COURSE you're not going to make your money back...you've blown 100 thousand dollars on print ads in Entertainment Weekly! There's no way to recoup that. You haven't even proven that the ad resulted in someone going to see the picture!

What's fueling Google to be an internet juggernaut? Advertising. Nobody pays to use Google. Nobody but advertisers pay to be seen there. MTV.com and PerezHilton.com make more money per month than most of the 80 pictures that came out this spring/summer. Why? They reach the same audience. Because they get their money from advertising.

Because advertisers pay to reach people who go to MTV.com. Paramount doesn't get paid for their audience. They are charging their audience. Imagine if Tracey decided today that in order to be a part of this group you had to pay. It would be the Tracey and Chris show within a week. (Well, not really, I think the core crew would come up off some money and support, but you get the idea) People would walk off pouting and fussing. Now, what if Tracey found out that an advertiser was willing to pay her $75,000 for 3 months just to put an ad in front of us, and the more we clicked on that ad, the more money she'd make, because the advertisers would soon return, and, as Obi-wan warned, in greater numbers. Well, there would be a routinely annoying ad in these messages that we would all either click on or ignore, and suddenly, SciFiNoir is a business.

This is essentially all the entertainment industry has to do. Take the money that's out there instead of trying to get blood from a stone.

Why not build an entertainment model supported by advertising? Why buy controlling interest in a theater chain, and make money from the ads on the screen? National Amusements, for example, makes NICE money from those trailers and commercials. Music, Sports, and movies need to get into the GETTING money business. Just put your business into a growth area and take what comes. And there's no greater growth area than interactive.

BIg studios should do what Disney does. Make the movie, then make the merchandise. Own the merchandise, give the movie money away. Throw the movie out there, and use it to sell merchandise and tickets to Orlando. Build a brand so big that everybody's kids bug you to upgrade your cable package to get their channel. How many times do Black filmmakers have to hear the George Lucas story before somebody gets it? How many different ways do people need to learn about Desilu? Do we really have to start a Black Troma Pictures to get this point across? This ain't new, folks, and it is the ONLY THING THAT WORKS. Take. The. Easy. Money.

You NEVER hear about how hard it is to get an adult picture made. Why? Because the Adult industry spent the years 1995-2001 getting itself together so that they wouldn't be caught out there when people stopped paying $40 for DVDs and VHS tapes.

Digital distribution, my friends. It is happening everywhere else except with us. there is a paradigm shift in marketing and promotion...and we are missing it!


Daryle Lockhart


On Sep 1, 2008, at 1:06 AM, ravenadal wrote:

The clarion call of digital distribution is similar to the siren call
of digital publishing on demand. I know a lot of authors who have
self-published, I can count the number who have made money on one hand
with fingers left over. The authors I know who have gotten paid are
still those who have published traditionally.

Ditto for film distribution. Just today I read an article about the
current hard times for independent films. Randall Miller, director of
"Bottle Shock," relates what happened with his first movie "Marilyn
Hotchkiss' Dancing & Charm School." "We had a great cast and an
amazing audience response. And got one of those small deals to
distribute the film." The movie still hasn't made money. "Which is
sad because it was not a very expensive movie," he said. "It should
have paid itself back, and it didn't." A studio, Miller said, would
have tacked on a 25% off the top." Plus, there are fees for marketing
"which you can't control" and interest. "And so when you start to do
the math...you see there's very little chance that you're going to get
your money back," Miller said. "It's worse than any other business in
that way. You take out a bank loan for any kind of business and once
you pay them off...you don't have to keep paying them."

Miller goes on to explain that "the profits are in home video," but
there is no money in home video unless the movie is a known commodity
- which is usually accomplished through traditional film distribution.

~rave!

--- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Daryle Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> distribution is becoming a thing of the past.
>
> Digital Distribution is the way. Financing for film will be changed
> forever once producers get off this "one week of release" mentality.
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2008, at 10:56 AM, ravenadal wrote:
>
> > the missing ingredient...money.
> >
> > If the studios would green light these movies they would get made. In > > his interviews for his new movie Spike Lee bemoans the fact that even > > after producing the most financially successful movie of his career > > (THE INSIDE MAN)he STILL could not get studio financing for his next
> > project.
> >
> > You might suggest these black actors, writers, directors put up their
> > own money but that is a fool's errand. In the rigged game of film
> > financing and film distribution an idealistic fool and his money would
> > be quickly separated.
> >
> > ~(no)rave!
> >
> > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Omari Confer" <clockworkman@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that Black Hollywood is too busy pouting to put out great
> > > work...with great actors
> > >
> > > We have writers...
> > >
> > > We have directors..
> > >
> > > We have actors..
> > >
> > > wtf?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/31/08, KeithBJohnson@ <KeithBJohnson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah i loved Brooks' turn as a criminal boss in "The Big Hit".
> > So sad
> > > > he doesn't do more movies....
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > > From: "Omari Confer" <clockworkman@>
> > > >
> > > > That I agree with.....Though he might be better as a villian of
> > some
> > > > kind......
> > > >
> > > > On 8/30/08, KeithBJohnson@ <KeithBJohnson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> There's an interesting idea!
> > > >> Actually, Brooks was one of my first choices for Professor
> > Robinson! He
> > > >> and Angela Bassett would be quite a pair.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -------------- Original message --------------
> > > >> From: "ravenadal" <ravenadal@>
> > > >>
> > > >> Excellent casting in the Age of Obama. May I suggest Avery
> > Brooks as
> > > >> the voice of the Robot?
> > > >>
> > > >> ~rave!
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com <scifinoir2% 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > >> KeithBJohnson@ wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > My picks:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Professor John Robinson - Chiwetel Ejiofor; alternate, Don
> > Cheadle
> > > >> > Maureen Robinson - Sanaa Lathan; alternate, N'Bush Wright
> > > >> > Judy Robinson - Camille Windbush ("The Bernie Mac Show")
> > > >> > Penny Robinson - Keke Palmer
> > > >> > Wilhelmina "Will" Robinson - China McClain (the smart aleck
> > girl
> > > >> from "House of Payne"; not the best actress, but would make a
> > suitably
> > > >> irritating genius kid)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Major Don West - Richard Brooks
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Professor Zachary Smith - Joe Morton
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > >> > From: "Omari Confer" <clockworkman@>
> > > >> > William Hurt cant act......he plays William Hurt in all hi s
> > movies.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Alright listers...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Cast the new and improved Lost in Space Movie!!!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Maureen Robinson
> > > >> > Major Don West
> > > >> > Judy Robinson
> > > >> > Penny Robinson
> > > >> > Professor John Robinson
> > > >> > Will Robinson
> > > >> > Professor Zachary Smith
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best Cast wins a prize...a date with Gymfig!!!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > lol
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 8/30/08, ravenadal <ravenadal@> wrote:
> > > >> > Remarkably, the last remake of LOST IN SPACE featured both
> > William
> > > >> > Hurt AND Gary Oldman. Of course, it also starred Matt LeBlanc.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ~(no)rave!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com <scifinoir2%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > >> "Omari Confer" <clockworkman@>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > They should remake Lost in Space....maybe put Malkovich in
> > it...
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > mmmm...happy thoughts...
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > c w m
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 8/29/08, KeithBJohnson@ <KeithBJohnson@> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > "Lost in Space"?
> > > >> > > > "Far Out Space Nuts"?
> > > >> > > > "Josie and the Pussycats in Outer Space"?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > >> > > > From: Martin <truthseeker_013@>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > It's striking me as some other SF show as well, Omari. Just
> > > >> > can't place
> > > >> > > > it. I need to hit up some folks on this.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --- On *Fri, 8/29/08, Omari Confer <clockworkman@>* wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > From: O mari Confer <clockworkman@>
> > > >> > > > Subject: [scifinoir2] Stargate: Universe (stop me if we
> > have
> > > >> > talked about
> > > >> > > > this)
> > > >> > > > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com <scifinoir2%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >> > > > Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 11:51 AM
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Why does the premise of the new Stargate show sound just
> > like
> > > >> > Star Trek
> > > >> > > > Voyager?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > > cwm blog
> > > >> > > > http://centralheati ngblog.blogspot.
> > > >> > com<http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com/>
> > > >> > > > STRING THEORY
> > > >> > > > http://www.stringth eory.mypodcast.
> > > >> > com<http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com/>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > cwm blog
> > > >> > > http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com
> > > >> > > STRING THEORY
> > > >> > > http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > cwm blog
> > > >> > http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com
> > > >> > STRING THEORY
> > > >> > http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > cwm blog
> > > > http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com
> > > > STRING THEORY
> > > > http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > cwm blog
> > > http://centralheatingblog.blogspot.com
> > > STRING THEORY
> > > http://www.stringtheory.mypodcast.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>




Reply via email to