This assumes the same corporate/shareholding structure would have prevailed through the process of changing the business model. It is by no means certain this would have been the case as the "pivot" could have been done through a new company. So, given all the facts available at the time, sounds like the right decision was taken.
This is very true, it makes for a better blog post title to say it could have been worth a bunch of money today, but in reality, its likely the stock would have been diluted down to barely anything today.
Movie studios' sole focus is money. Money allows them to hire movie stars, to use the best equipment, to buy ad space and to rent movie theatres. In short, money (and how much they are prepared to spend) is what separates anyone with a video camera and an idea, and the major movie studios.
Indie filmmakers cannot compete on a level monetary footing. So they must disrupt and stay lean, not only in production but ALSO in marketing and distribution.
This is where I believe a lot of indie film makers need to focus on: disruptive distribution.
As an example, I directed a movie and treated it as a lean startup from pre production.
We are looking to disrupt traditional movie distribution by offering individuals and businesses something tangible and of intrinsic value when they buy our movie: to feature them on a billboard on Times Square. Check out the movie and strategy at: http://bit.ly/n4XQG0
The problem with "killing" Hollywood and replacing it with other forms of entertainment is that GOOD movies fulfil a very specific function: through storytelling they shed light on the human psyche and give us an insight into life itself and our journey through it. This has been the function of stories since our ancestors sat in the dark around fires. (It could be argued that when we sit down in a dark cinema we are tapping into this latent desire to share a common story experience.) The idea of a shared experience hearing a story is as old as the humanity itself.
Good novels give us insight into life/ourselves but I doubt video games or surfing the web can be held up as providing the same. They are just ways to pass the time, which could also be said for 90% of Hollywood's current output.
Independent film makers therefore have an opportunity to tell the stories the studios do not. So, this begs the question; why haven't we seen the first internet blockbuster?
Movie studios' sole focus is money. Money allows them to hire movie stars, to use the best equipment, to buy ad space and to rent movie theatres. In short, money (and how much they are prepared to spend) is what separates anyone with a video camera and an idea, and the major movie studios.
Indie filmmakers cannot compete on a level monetary footing. So they must disrupt and stay lean, not only in production but ALSO in marketing and distribution.
This is where I believe a lot of indie film makers need to focus on: disruptive distribution.
As an example, I directed a movie and treated it as a lean startup from pre production.
We are looking to disrupt traditional movie distribution by offering individuals and businesses something tangible and of intrinsic value when they buy our movie: to feature them on a billboard on Times Square. More info on our strategy can be found at: http://on.fb.me/osp0oE
Having lived and worked in Nigeria, I can say that there is enormous potential but with net access costing $100 per month, it is out of reach for the average person. Electricity supply is sporadic and generators/diesel is expensive. So if you take a population of 160 million and then whittle it down to people who can afford net access and electricity, the actual market becomes much smaller. We have not even touched on the issue of online payment systems and lack of postal service for physical delivery of goods, which would reduce the business model selection.
You might say that there is opportunity to provide cheaper net access, electricity and other infrastructure items but these are heavily licensed sectors that need a huge amount of capital just to be in the game, which means the price to the end user will probably be high as you need to justify a return.
Plus you have to deal with running a business in an environment where you need to pay for basic infrastructure (electricity, security etc etc) which increases costs further.
There are problems to be solved and startups can find a niche in Africa but it means working from a local perspective and not just transplanting a concept from a developed market where the needs and requirements of the market as well as the cost base are radically different.
VirtualBox runs XP and Win7 perfectly on my MBP2011; it has saved my skin a number of times and am not sure why it does not work for some people. I was considering getting Parallels but this seems to do the trick and works for 2 other people I know as well. Plus it's free....
Thanks for the feedback, which I found very interesting. We did look at the possibility of an ARG but decided to go another way for this movie.
We are treating the movie launch as a software product: make, launch, get feedback, iterate, repeat.
The response we've had in terms of sales and feedback has been phenomenal. We are working on other value added stuff to add to the promotion and looking at the Josh Freese site was very inspiring. Please do let us know what you think when we add more to the offering.
Cheers.
All content producers face the same problem: if their product gains traction, it will be pirated; if it does not gain traction, there will be no revenue.
We just finished a no budget feature film and knew we had to come up with a disruptive distribution strategy to get traction and avoid piracy. Our solution:
everyone who registers to download the movie will get to display a picture, logo or text of their choosing on a billboard in New York's Times Square.
Prices start from only $10 upwards. So for as little as $10 you can get any message / image / logo (as long as it's not obscene and you own the rights) up on a Times Square billboard.
Our strategy seems to be working.
I know this has been mentioned before but filmmakers, programmers, musicians, artists etc all need to think about how to engage an audience as a hook to the content. So by buying the content from the actual producers, they get much more value than just pirating it.
Thanks....You are right, there is a certain novelty factor present, but isn't that the case with all (movie/entertainment) marketing?
The pricing structure makes sure there is something for everyone and the sales we have to date actually show that startups would be interested in looping the recording of their Times Square message for display on their websites.
Funnily enough, our marketing strategy was actually inspired by the promotions studios used to do in the early days of cinema eg a studio used to take a lion to towns and when people came to see the lion, they would sell them a movie ticket. For more on this see: http://bit.ly/pgyGaR
You might want to include in your offer some high quality picture or HD vid of the message on the Times Square screen.
Assuming you guys are great with capturing a "scene" in an impressive way, this would make it at least for me much more interesting. You could include there some photomontage of the final result already on the website.
Maybe in the end the most important shoot of the movie is going to be the one of the sponsors displayed at Times Square. A true money sho(o)t ;)
This was a thought I also had. An HD recording of the message stream, with enough of the surrounding environment to make it look / demonstrate its "liveness" and context.
Rather than trying to deliver individual fragments to all the contributors, see if the ads/messages are clocked tightly enough that you can simply post one or several videos somewhere (YouTube, Vimeo?) and then provide contributors the timestamp of the start of their particular ad/message.
Possible, the ad/message stream videos may take on a life or their own. Two results for the price of one, as it were.
P.S. Beware of liability, though. At your price point, that's a lot of content to vet. And you don't have just obscene content to worry about, but possibly also trademark infringement, accusations of hate speech, etc., etc. Some of which might be hard to catch in a cursory examination. (OTOH, one brief display might reduce the change of facing legal action. IANAL and all that.)
