Adjusting to change is a difficult thing. Yet, in order to survive, it becomes a necessity. The film industry has changed so much in the last ten years that it feels like it's moved on and left behind a gawking industry, staring at the rubble of what once was. If you were to ask the crowd where the film industry is now, they'd have to scratch their head and tell you: "I think it ran off that way, but I'm not really sure."
So where is it? Why are film makers and content creators so depressed? Why is it that, whenever you ask someone who's been in the industry for more than ten years how to get ahead, they tell you to just get out? Ask someone who's been in the industry for more than thirty years and they just shake their head and tell you they have no idea. "Nobody's taking risks on young talent anymore" they say. Make a short film, enter a contest, maybe you'll get noticed?
But what is the problem with the industry at the moment? Simple, it's the internet. It takes big expensive spectacle to get people out of their homes and into the theaters these days. And why buy a dvd when you can stream the movie right from the internet? Why watch TV live when you can just record it and cut out the ads? Why indeed?
-A great example of crowd funded film work.
Big companies would say that because of the internet, there's so much "noise" now. It's impossible to get people's attention. But the truth is different. Because of the internet, the audience is now in control. The audience has made the so called "noise", youtube, blogs, webisodes etc... and now the audience has the power to be selective like never before. If the peer to peer reviews of a product fall flat, it doesn't matter how many celebrities have endorsed it with their pearly white smiles, no one will buy. And most will feel a bit jaded by the attempted manipulation.
I would imagine that for me, the most important asset in my career will be the audience and their appraisal of my work. At the moment the closest thing to consider would be the number of facebook likes, or stars, or comments in a feed. These things reveal some of the value of a work. The higher the approval rating, the number of views etc demonstrate the size and support of the audience. These two ideas, size and support, I would wager will become the two biggest factors in leveraging funding from private investors. And let's face it, that's where the money will come from. For the first time, films can be tested before they are made, audience and demographic can be quantified far beyond mere guesswork. People can tick a box that says, Yes I'll buy a ticket to see this film. Isn't this a good thing? Doesn't it pave the way for fresh talent who can't attract big name stars, directors, or studios? Surely an unknown filmmaker with 300,000 hits on youtube is less of a risk for an investor than an unknown filmmaker with nothing but a good idea.
It's also through multiple small income streams that increase value overtime as the film maker gains audience size and support that will make things possible. This crowd funded artist seems oddly similar to the age old wealthy patron supporting the arts model. Long ago it was up to the rich to support the development of the arts, by supporting and nurturing artists. It was a mark of pride, they owned the artist in a sense, and could attribute the work to themselves by proxy. Yet now, here we are, faced with a similar situation. Yet instead of the wealthy patron, we have the crowd patron. Hundreds of individuals supporting the arts in small contributions, and yet the same experience becomes true. They have a sense of ownership, of loyalty. A sense of being apart of what is being made, and in a very real way they are.
In some ways it makes the artist, like a brand. Recognizable, generating loyalty, support. Yet, and here is the real ticket, unlike the brands of corporations, the artist is real, the artist isn't a cartoon character, a logo, a set of colors specifically picked to cause people to buy something. If previous generations grew up in the age of distrust of the government, the current generations have definitely grown up in the age of distrusting the corporation, and with that, brands. Who doesn't think of a big name brand without a bit of cynicism these days? I use Google everyday, I have a lot of 'brand loyalty" but I certainly don't trust them. Amazon, Apple, Dreamworks, same thing. I enjoy what they make, but every time I click "purchase" it's with a bit of distaste at the thought of all those suits sitting around tables in really high towers trying to get as much out of me as possible. Artists however... I know a film maker isn't trying to get everything they can out of me. I know a painter isn't interested in my 'brand recall'. I would much rather buy Christopher Nolan's films directly from him. Purchase Studio Ghibili DVD's straight from them. Etc. Etc. Of course, if they did start selling directly, I would quickly question if it was really them, and not just some corporate ploy. But still, you get my point.
In essence consumers have traditionally been abused through manipulation and coercive controlling behavior from corporations. Suddenly however, products have to prove themselves before they'll be purchased. Concepts need to be introduced online. Audience opinion considered. Like it or not, the "like" button could be worth more than the festival olive branch in todays world. We can either run from it. Or run into it. But the only real question that matters is this:
"What do you think?"