Holy Grails

Making my most recent post in the Sam Bailey Forum got me thinking...

When entrepreneuring independent filmmakers undertake the process of making a movie, a good number of them never consider the financial prospects of their movie at all. For them, the film is about having something to show for themselves.

Those that take a slightly longer-term view of how the investment of film production factors into their future tend to point to two big challenges as the crux of their film's success or failure: financing and distribution.

After all, how can anyone make a movie without money? Once it's made, how will anyone see it without some kind of distribution in place?

From a strictly entrepreneurial standpoint, that's akin to putting the cart before the horse. Asking the question "How will anyone see the film?" presupposes that someone actually does. Are distributors and financers wrong for wanting proof before they put their resources at risk?

Why should they have to? In this age of social media, there are a number of ways for an artist to engage and build an audience. Even if that audience isn't as big as a feature film demands, the filmmaker can demonstrate what they can do with a given set of resources and time. With more time, with more resources, more comes of it.

Whether it's webisodes, viral marketing, cottage industry, online discussion, or preferably a combination of all of the above, social media is the key to media entrepreneurism today.

The audience has always been the holy grail, and financing and distribution are no longer the only way to reach them. For that reason alone, financing and distribution sources are going to have new criteria when it comes to doing business. So long as filmmakers are willing to use these changes to their advantage, those same financers and distributers are willing to let go of their creative and financial control.

After all, an audience is what they're after. Give them that, and you can have your money and distribution far cheaper than you imagine.