“Any media company is a laboratory right now. There is no established way to do anything.” Thus spoke Adam Moss recently, in his role as editor in chief of New York magazine. The publication has altered its cadence and is expanding into the worlds of cable television and live events. His comment referred to print media but it might just as well have been applied to the entertainment industry at large.
The film industry, in particular, could benefit from more experimental, “agile” thinking and delivery. Over the weekend, The New York Times ran an article that was laden with anxiety over the state of cinema-going. As with all popular past-times that have been ingrained in our culture, we have a tendency not only to sentimentalise the activity but also to remove such activities from their contextual moorings. Going to the cinema has not been a consistent experience, as A.O. Scott sagely illustrates,
“The nickelodeons of the earliest days gave way to movie palaces, which were supplemented by humbler main-street Bijoux and Roxys. In the ’30s, the major home-entertainment platforms were radio and the upright piano in the parlor, and movies offered a cheap, accessible and climate-controlled escape. And millions of people went often, less out of reverence than out of habit, returning every week to take in double features, shorts and serials, newsreels and cartoons…
In the postwar years, the rise of car culture and the growth of the suburbs planted drive-ins in wide-open spaces, while grindhouses, art houses and campus film societies flourished in the cities and college towns. Moviegoing has never been just one thing.”
Much has been made of Sean “Napster and Facebook” Parker’s Screening Room initiative – offering newly released films at $50 for home viewing – that has very publicly split Hollywood in two. It has been referred to as “weaponised VOD“, in tones not dissimilar from those who worried about the end of cinema back when TV arrived on the scene. Such a technology, and more importantly such a way of consuming media, is hardly new. Millions of people have been watching films in this way (i.e. at home while the film sits in scarcity-inducing cinemas) for years, just without a legal way of doing it for the most part (shining exceptions include platforms like Curzon At Home).
The unfortunate trap this article falls into is to assume that any money spent on watching films using platforms such as the Screening Room platform is money necessarily lost by exhibitors. This thinking is overly simplistic and lacks any basis on quantitative data. It is the same argument made against those, referred to above, who pirate content. In reality, data from 2014 show that “people who illegally download movies also love going to the cinema and do not mind paying to watch films“.
Current industry inertia is not merely preventing new innovative consumer products and platforms from arriving, it is also hurting existing business models. While a sizeable minority of independent films are increasingly turning to day-and-date SVOD releases, they remain a minority, in an industry where risk is baked into multi-year franchises at $300m a go, but is nowhere to be found when considering if a film might need to be released in a tailored manner. Films showing up in such fashion look more often to be those that the studio don’t mind breaking even on, rather than a film that might hit home with a demographic who would be more likely to pay a premium to stream it from home. Last week, The New Yorker wrote about the antiquated distribution strategy of “limited” and “wide” release. This is where cinema can play a proactive role: in supporting independent cinema
“Because there’s no comparable venue now, far fewer independent films get proper releases; some of the best of the past few years… are still awaiting release.”
The article points out that such definitions of release, in an era of instantly available content, is not only anachronistic but harmful to films.
There are thus several opportunities for new revenue streams to be explored in the film industry. These can be adopted with a more experimental attitude toward distributing films; the kind of attitude that gave birth to the industry in the first place. It also requires that some of the risk of potentially destabilising tentpole film franchises be redirected into exploring the potential of films to reach a much, much wider audience.
We all seem to have less time to ourselves these days. But there seems to be more to watch – on more platforms – than ever before. What trends have led to this, and what’s the result? Much editorial ink has been spilled over the years about how our lives seem to be getting busier, with less free time to ourselves. This is somewhat of a painful irony given that many of our more intellectual ancestors thought our evolution as a species would quickly lead to a civilisation mostly consumed by thoughts of how to fill the days of leisure. In last week’s New Yorker, Harvard professor Thales Teixeira noted there are three major “fungible” resources we have as people – money, time and attention. The third, according to Teixeira, is the “least explored”. Interestingly, Teixeira calculated the inherent price of attention and how it fluctuates, by correlating it with rising ad rates for the Super Bowl. Last year, the price of attention jumped more than 20%. The article elaborates,
“The jump had obvious implications: attention—at least, the kind worth selling—is becoming increasingly scarce, as people spend their free time distracted by a growing array of devices. And, just as the increasing scarcity of oil has led to more exotic methods of recovery, the scarcity of attention, combined with a growing economy built around its exchange, has prompted R. & D. in the [retaining of attention].”
It’s such thinking that has persuaded executives to invest in increasingly multi-platform, creative advertising during the Super Bowl, and to media production companies taking their wares to the likes of YouTube and Netflix. But it’s all circular , as demonstrated last week when Amazon announced it would be producing films for cinema release. The plurality of such content over different channels carries important connotations for pricing strategies. At its most fundamental, what is a product worth when it is intangible and potentially only available in digital form? It chimes with an article written earlier this month in The Economist on the customer benefits of e-commerce. Though most knee-jerk reactions would assume price is the biggest benefit to customers, recent research illustrates this is not always the case. Researchers at MIT showed on average people paid an extra 50% for books online versus in-store. This isn’t because that latest David Baldacci is sold for more on Amazon, but rather because of the long tail. Which means more products are able to find the right owner, for a price, whereas in store comparatively they go unsold. More channels have meant more availability for content, which should benefit consumers in that more content destined to be a hit now finds a home, where once it might have been lost if turned down by the major TV or radio network stations. The Economist elaborates,
“Seasoned publishers have only a vague idea what book, film or song will be a hit. A major record label can sign only a fraction of the artists available, knowing full well it will unwittingly reject a future superstar. Thanks to cheap digital recording technology, file sharing, YouTube, streaming music and social media, however, barriers to entry have been dismantled. Artists can now record and distribute a song without signing to a major label. Independent labels have proliferated, and they are taking on the artists passed over by major labels. Hit songs are still a lottery, but the public gets three times as many lottery tickets.”
So while we may have less time to consume it, more content over more channels will allow for greater chances for breakout hits, particularly with avid niche audiences. Amazon Prime video content was until recently confined to a niche audience, and the show Transparent dealt with niche subject matter. But the show has broken out into the zeitgeist and won two awards at the recent Golden Globes ceremony. (Full disclosure, we know a producer on the show and were lucky enough to visit the set on the Paramount lot in Los Angeles last summer). It is likely such a great show – recently made available free for 24 hours as a way to upsell customers to Prime – would not have found a home on traditional TV networks, and thus in people’s homes, were it not for this plurality.