Apple could unknowingly be tipping the scales for filmmakers

[Jonesy Jones]

If you haven't been paying attention, Apple, for the last year or two, has been stealing entertainment execs and producers. It is widely known that they are producing original content for a soon to be released TV streaming service. Here's an article about the known content under production. With names like Spielberg and Oprah, they are definitely all in.

To know why this is such a big deal for us, the smaller filmmaker, you must be aware of 3 things.

1. The Netflix model is unsustainable for producers of original content, maybe even Netflix. Subscription conglomerates are the end of the line for content, not the beginning. By the time your content begins streaming it hopefully has already been profitable. If Netflix is not the content graveyard, it is at least the retirement home. I would even dare say that Netflix itself is struggling to profit from their own content, thus the upcoming subscription increase. Sure, there are interesting alternate options available like Amazon Prime and Viimeo OTT, and there are certainly some filmmakers who have done well using the streaming universe to release their films, but these are exceptions not the rule. Currently, the streaming model is a crap shot, and it's difficult to build a business plan on one.
2. Consumers are creatures of habit. If you expect consumers to alter their patterns of behavior to buy/rent/subscribe/watch your content, you better have an Ace up your sleeve. Otherwise, prepare to be disappointed. I will confidently claim that consumers consume long form content in these ways -- theaters, broadcast, Redbox, streaming (Netflix). For the smaller filmmaker, the first 3 are not really available to us since cost of entry is so high and there are so many gatekeepers. And the 4th is unsustainable (see #1). Thus, there is an obvious problem for filmmakers. Even if you succeed in producing absolutely amazing content, there is likely no sustainable channel to market it on.
3. Consumers will not likely pay to consume. This is not entirely true. Consumers still buy movie tickets. Some still have cable or satellite subscriptions. They still rent from Redbox. But see #2 regarding cost of entry. Ironically, in an age where the demand for video content is at an all time high, no one is buying it. When was the last time you bought or rented a movie? I ask people this all time. Answers range from years to months. Regardless, this is not sustainable. The reasons for this is complex. But I propose that a significant component is cognitive dissonance. Unlike the bygone days of VHS and then DVD, there is currently no standard. What do I buy, physical or digital? If physical, which? Blu Ray? UHD? HDR? 8K? If digital, where? Apple? Amazon? Youtube? etc. Digital rentals don't quite have the same obstacles, but most often you are still expecting a consumer to alter their pattern of behavior to rent your film/episode. Again, see #2. Bottomline, amazing content does not equal sales.

So how will Apple change this?

I believe Apple's entry into content creation is going to change the way most consumers consume content. As people gravitate to Apple's content, they will naturally be using it's products. This is going to create a shift. Its possible that soonish we'll all be watching content from a centralized ecosystem of Apple devices and services. Love or hate Apple, when they move, so does the industry. Here's another short article about Apple's entry into the entertainment market. But this is one of many articles. There are plenty more.

IF Apple successfully creates a platform with an enormous market share of subscribers/viewers/renters/buyers, then convincing John and Jane Consumer to buy or rent or subscribe will be far easier. Why? There will be a standard again. Cognitive dissonance will be gone. Even physical sales -- whichever format -- can include a digital Apple code. Buyers don't have to worry about holding on to their current physical media or worrying that it will eventually become obsolete. Apple is actually very generous and offers future versions/formats of your purchased media at no additional charge. I'm not expecting a massive shift in sales vs subscriptions, but selling, if that's your thing, will be far easier. Apple will have done half the work since we'll all be watching via Apple already.

All of that is already available via iTunes or Apple TV, what will be different?

I think Apple will alter consumers habits. I believe this is actually the most significant point. Currently, consumers do consume via Apple devices or services, but I do not think it is a very significant market share. If they effectively change large amounts of consumers to alter their patterns of behavior from Netflix and broadcast, then your and my content can live right next to the big blockbuster films and TV shows.

How does this make the streaming model sustainable?

Well, it simply makes it possible. Currently we have virtually no sustainable ways to distribute our content for the reasons described above. If Apple succeeds in shaking up the industry, as I believe they will, you can focus on creating amazing content and marketing it where consumers already consume. It guarantees nothing but an opportunity. 

[jpfilmz]

1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

All of that is already available via iTunes or Apple TV, what will be different?

I think Apple will alter consumers habits. I believe this is actually the most significant point. Currently, consumers do consume via Apple devices or services, but I do not think it is a very significant market share. If they effectively change large amounts of consumers to alter their patterns of behavior from Netflix and broadcast, then your and my content can live right next to the big blockbuster films and TV shows.

How does this make the streaming model sustainable?

Well, it simply makes it possible. Currently we have virtually no sustainable ways to distribute our content for the reasons described above. If Apple succeeds in shaking up the industry, as I believe they will, you can focus on creating amazing content and marketing it where consumers already consume. It guarantees nothing but an opportunity. 

This sort of already exist for Amazon Prime.  You can be on mobile and in every household living room that has a SmartTV or that has xfinity cable service as they have partnered with Amazon Prime.  Apple wisely is not allowing an itunes app on samsung TV.  

[ntblowz]

About Netflix model is not sustainable I completely agree! They just canceled Travelers ????

[webrunner5]

But, but..

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/tech/apple-itunes-samsung-tvs/index.html

[Hans Punk]

I think Apple are way too late to the party...like an arrogant drunk waving his wallet around.

Apple won’t surpass Netflix and Amazon because they’ve insisted on being too proprietary in their thinking and have no innovation sparkle under its current dictatorship. It is essential these days for consumers to have choice of platforms to view streamed content. People expect everything to be available on a phone, laptop,desktop,TV and totally agnostic to which manufacture of peripheral you are viewing it on. Apple TV is an example of the last clinging attempt of Apple to lock and control mass-market consumers into an Apple streaming ecosystem. Apple could have been pioneers at the streaming market - if they had just relinquished their proprietary hardware mindset and invested earlier in original quality content creation, thinking about the user experience first, then work backwards - I guess  like Mr Jobs probably would have done it.

9 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

#2. Bottomline, amazing content does not equal sales.

I’d respectfully disagree with that, quality content of any kind eventually gets recognised on its own. With proper promotion, quality content can rise to the top very quickly and stand out from the noise. The content quality is what sustains these platforms, it lives or dies depending on the ratings of any given promoted or originally created works from them. I know of a many people who subscribed to Netflix because of the buzz behind ‘Stranger Things’ and likewise for Amazon Prime when other Amazon original shows became ‘THE’ thing to watch at the time. The power of original curated content is they can do exactly that - become the sole promoter and distributor of content on their own terms. I know many people (including myself) who subscribe to more than 3 streaming services, just to get access to shows that are only available from those platforms. So I think amazing (or at least desirable) content does equal sales.

 Although they are all behemoth companies, they do carve the way for distribution methods for indi/low budget films...and everything related to the future of distribution is still in flux at the moment, with smaller streaming platforms appearing and disappearing at a fast rate while things settle into figuring out what revenue can be had from the relatively niche demographics. I suspect in the coming years we will have satellite streaming services from the larger platforms - that can cater bespoke content to the consumer, without having to pay the blanket subscription fee for a load of content that the user would never want to watch.

Where would Apple fit in?

Consumers are already fed up with ever increasing prices on Apple products that have no considerable advancement in generations. Their next lineup of iPhones are supposed to be rolling back the expense to consumers after a market dip and consumer backlash. I think if Apple tied consumers into a mainstream streaming platform that necessitated sole use of their products - then that would be the last straw for many potential consumers. Look at iTunes - it is still an un-intuitive dumpster fire of a platform to store and manage consumer content...all of which is locked into an Apple hardware peripheral to acces and edit. If Apple allows iTunes library and services to be available to Samsung TV devices, then great...pity it has happened 5 years too late to give Apple any kind of advantage to the streaming market!

The Netflix and Amazon studio model for original content creation is now quite well established. Most importantly it has seemingly built good, loyal relationships with actors,writers, producers and directors who appreciate when they have more creative freedom allowed to them - that would not have always been the case with traditional studio financed productions. I think the most successful Netflix and Amazon original releases have come from this kind of agreeable partnership.

‘Content is king’ as they say - but by the look of what Apple have planned on their slate, it looks laughably weak and like a last ditch effort to jump on a bandwagon that has already left town and set up a channel on YouTube. Unless Apple can roll out some seriously impressive/ affordable hardware that makes their service a totally unique experience , I just don’t see them succeeding or doing anything more than playing an expensive game of catch-up.

I would love to be wrong, and that Apple have a next gen 50inch HDR no-glasses 3D TV to be delivered to your door, after subscribing to a very affordable annual subscription.

 

I’d be most interested to see what Alibaba Pictures Group decide to do in the near future...they are the silent fish in the pond that keeps getting bigger. If they were to decide to bring a dedicated streaming service to the west (or even buy Netflix) they could probably pull off some real shake up to the streaming market.

[kye]

12 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

If you haven't been paying attention, Apple, for the last year or two, has been stealing entertainment execs and producers. It is widely known that they are producing original content for a soon to be released TV streaming service. Here's an article about the known content under production. With names like Spielberg and Oprah, they are definitely all in.

To know why this is such a big deal for us, the smaller filmmaker, you must be aware of 3 things.

1. The Netflix model is unsustainable for producers of original content, maybe even Netflix. Subscription conglomerates are the end of the line for content, not the beginning. By the time your content begins streaming it hopefully has already been profitable. If Netflix is not the content graveyard, it is at least the retirement home. I would even dare say that Netflix itself is struggling to profit from their own content, thus the upcoming subscription increase. Sure, there are interesting alternate options available like Amazon Prime and Viimeo OTT, and there are certainly some filmmakers who have done well using the streaming universe to release their films, but these are exceptions not the rule. Currently, the streaming model is a crap shot, and it's difficult to build a business plan on one.
2. Consumers are creatures of habit. If you expect consumers to alter their patterns of behavior to buy/rent/subscribe/watch your content, you better have an Ace up your sleeve. Otherwise, prepare to be disappointed. I will confidently claim that consumers consume long form content in these ways -- theaters, broadcast, Redbox, streaming (Netflix). For the smaller filmmaker, the first 3 are not really available to us since cost of entry is so high and there are so many gatekeepers. And the 4th is unsustainable (see #1). Thus, there is an obvious problem for filmmakers. Even if you succeed in producing absolutely amazing content, there is likely no sustainable channel to market it on.
3. Consumers will not likely pay to consume. This is not entirely true. Consumers still buy movie tickets. Some still have cable or satellite subscriptions. They still rent from Redbox. But see #2 regarding cost of entry. Ironically, in an age where the demand for video content is at an all time high, no one is buying it. When was the last time you bought or rented a movie? I ask people this all time. Answers range from years to months. Regardless, this is not sustainable. The reasons for this is complex. But I propose that a significant component is cognitive dissonance. Unlike the bygone days of VHS and then DVD, there is currently no standard. What do I buy, physical or digital? If physical, which? Blu Ray? UHD? HDR? 8K? If digital, where? Apple? Amazon? Youtube? etc. Digital rentals don't quite have the same obstacles, but most often you are still expecting a consumer to alter their pattern of behavior to rent your film/episode. Again, see #2. Bottomline, amazing content does not equal sales.

So how will Apple change this?

I believe Apple's entry into content creation is going to change the way most consumers consume content. As people gravitate to Apple's content, they will naturally be using it's products. This is going to create a shift. Its possible that soonish we'll all be watching content from a centralized ecosystem of Apple devices and services. Love or hate Apple, when they move, so does the industry. Here's another short article about Apple's entry into the entertainment market. But this is one of many articles. There are plenty more.

IF Apple successfully creates a platform with an enormous market share of subscribers/viewers/renters/buyers, then convincing John and Jane Consumer to buy or rent or subscribe will be far easier. Why? There will be a standard again. Cognitive dissonance will be gone. Even physical sales -- whichever format -- can include a digital Apple code. Buyers don't have to worry about holding on to their current physical media or worrying that it will eventually become obsolete. Apple is actually very generous and offers future versions/formats of your purchased media at no additional charge. I'm not expecting a massive shift in sales vs subscriptions, but selling, if that's your thing, will be far easier. Apple will have done half the work since we'll all be watching via Apple already.

All of that is already available via iTunes or Apple TV, what will be different?

I think Apple will alter consumers habits. I believe this is actually the most significant point. Currently, consumers do consume via Apple devices or services, but I do not think it is a very significant market share. If they effectively change large amounts of consumers to alter their patterns of behavior from Netflix and broadcast, then your and my content can live right next to the big blockbuster films and TV shows.

How does this make the streaming model sustainable?

Well, it simply makes it possible. Currently we have virtually no sustainable ways to distribute our content for the reasons described above. If Apple succeeds in shaking up the industry, as I believe they will, you can focus on creating amazing content and marketing it where consumers already consume. It guarantees nothing but an opportunity. 

Interesting.

We periodically buy or rent content here in Australia.  The only way to get Game of Thrones here (legally) is to pay for an extortionate Foxtel subscription or just buy GOT.  We compared buying it on disc vs iTunes and iTunes was cheaper.  We don't care about 4K, or even HD sometimes, so we're not paying top dollar.  Good SD looks fine on our modest sized LCD TV.

We also rent movies from Telstra on occasion to watch for family movie night.  The kids go to the movies with their friends sometimes, and if there's a big movie that I really want to watch on the big screen (like Star Wars) then we'll go to the movies, but otherwise we don't go to the movies with the kids.  Instead we rent a movie from Telstra Bigpond for about $5 or so for the SD version.  We all watch Netflix and YT but the newer release movies aren't available through streaming.

Apple is great at making platforms and locking people into them, so I think they have a real chance to dethrone Netflix if they are smart about it.  Considering that Apple operate other platforms (apps, books, podcasts, music, etc) which have far less barriers to entry, might mean that its a successful middle-ground between the media conglomerate world (that Netflix is really part of) and the open-to-everyone world (that YouTube is part of).  

Assuming low barriers to entry, this is kind of what YouTube RED was meant to be.  We subscribe to YouTube, mostly because it gives offline viewing and no ads, but now that most good YT creators have ads for sponsors within their videos it's kind of getting annoying to me now.  

I'd pay decently for something where we get a mixture of Netflix type content as well as sponsor-free content from professional YT creators.  There's lots of talk amongst YT creators about having all their eggs in one basket with YT as a platform too, so having a competitor would be very interesting to creators too I think.

9 hours ago, ntblowz said:

About Netflix model is not sustainable I completely agree! They just canceled Travelers ????

Damn, that was one we were watching ???

[ND64]

This business is unsustainable because of ridiculously high production costs, it doesn't matter which one of big names is supporting the ecosystem. 

[sanveer]

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

This business is unsustainable because of ridiculously high production costs, it doesn't matter which one of big names is supporting the ecosystem. 

I couldn't agree more. The emphasis on expensive equipment and expensive cast and crew is stubbornly stupid. Plus writers in most jurisdictions aren't paid enough and plagiarists aren't punished enough.

If VoD platforms kept a fund for 100 Feature Films under 100k, and ensured that the stories were great, they wouldn't have to think of most of the rubbish. The problem is VoD platforms have not been able to separate themselves from the over budget Hollywood rubbish they are attempting to replace.

Suddenly there are so many VoD platforms that no one player is probably making enough. And until they improve their content and budget better, they don't deserve to. 

[Mokara]

If other streaming services are not viable for original content as you claim, what makes you thing it will be any different for Apple? Short of running at a loss specifically to drive competition out of business, there is no reason to think they will be any more successful. Adding "*Produced by Apple" after titles is not going to magically make their content more appealing than content produced elsewhere.

[Jonesy Jones]

On 2/2/2019 at 9:36 PM, Hans Punk said:

Apple won’t surpass Netflix and Amazon because they’ve insisted on being too proprietary

Looks like Apple is breaking their pattern.

Roku in talks with Apple about AirPlay 2 support.

[fuzzynormal]

I'd be happy if a well attended platform was willing and able to give indy filmmakers the fair % of any sales, but I don't see a channel out there on the market anywhere, really.  I've used, and plan on using Vimeo, for my VOD, but it's ultimately just too niche.  It's an option, but not a great one.  You're not going to get any "window-shopping" sales on that platform.

[Ivko Pivko]

I think you don't raise the prices of a service that is unsuccessful. Maybe they're going to try to squeeze the available customers before Disney arrives.

I have the feeling the system is going to be as the early days of studios, with big contracts to generate serials and films (Netflix-Millar) and we're still in early exploration periods. Do people prefer binging or week episodes? Maybe depends of the serial? Which genres attract more repeated customers? Do people leave after one serial and come back for season 2 or can we offer them something to stay?

Netflix is doing all right and all the investment and crap they show now will help to fine tune their strategy and improve soon enough. I mean, Marvel is going to be huge and they're going to lose customers unless they have something in a similar tone and HBO, except three or four serials don't have enough production to keep me paying every month, at least where I am the price is around four coffees, which I can live without.

In case of Apple, we already know that their production is going to be bland and without bite and I'm not sure they'll reach a big chunk of the market. And for Disney, it's going to be interesting if the budgets and serials they're going to offer plus their catalog will be enough to make people pay the fee, which I'm guessing is not going to be low.

Budgets are crazy right now but the system is evolving, I'm sure they'll discover in the next years where's the limit. Maybe a tentpole a month or every trimester and then smaller, more throw to the wall to see what sticks productions. Sci Fi channel were pioneers ?

[Trek of Joy]

Netflix is profitable and subscribers are growing, Apple is a little late to the party and we know it won't be cheaper/better than other options - just easier if you own an Apple device. There's 7 or 8 in my household and I'm not buying into another streaming service beyond Nexflix and Amazon prime.

Meh...

Chris

[Laurier]

Warning harsh opinion ahead.

 

Indie filmmakers need to be realist, the general audience/distribution platforms won t care about your project if it s not up to the industry standard.
If you have a very good script and are surrounded with people with decent credentials, you are likely to find some money to make it happen properly.

If you are complaining that the audience is crap and don t understand you, your project is the issue.

It s definitely possible to create good content with very little money but it s very hard to maintain the quality all the way to the end to the production, you need talent and discipline. 

I recently saw Shoplifters, the movie got a lot a attention and won a lot of prices ( and yes, was well funded) but honestly that definitely the kind of movie that can be done with a super small budget.

I did a fair amount of grading/ post production for indie movies, mostly shorts, you can see that the directors were more focused on shooting expensive equipement than really focusing on their script/skills.

But couple of times, I also meet very talent emerging directors that, in the same shooting conditions made very high quality movies.

But to really get produced properly, I think you either need to make a decent indie feature with no money, or very successful shorts and have a feature script ready.

No one is going to come to you if you are no one with big dreams and no actual material.

I think all those platform are really looking for new quality content, and are willing to fund all kind of projects, I think the issues is more down to the filmmakers with unoriginal obsessive zombie movies projects .

 

 

 

[Video Hummus]

On 2/3/2019 at 1:38 AM, sanveer said:

I couldn't agree more. The emphasis on expensive equipment and expensive cast and crew is stubbornly stupid. Plus writers in most jurisdictions aren't paid enough and plagiarists aren't punished enough.

If VoD platforms kept a fund for 100 Feature Films under 100k, and ensured that the stories were great, they wouldn't have to think of most of the rubbish. The problem is VoD platforms have not been able to separate themselves from the over budget Hollywood rubbish they are attempting to replace.

Suddenly there are so many VoD platforms that no one player is probably making enough. And until they improve their content and budget better, they don't deserve to. 

Yes, this 100%. Sometimes a lot of the Netflix Originals just look and feel like they are trying too hard. When some of the better movies and films are simply about story and less with all the crazy explosions and fancy (and expensive) special effects and stuff. If the story is good, viewers don't care!

[sanveer]

8 hours ago, Laurier said:

Warning harsh opinion ahead.

 

Indie filmmakers need to be realist, the general audience/distribution platforms won t care about your project if it s not up to the industry standard.
If you have a very good script and are surrounded with people with decent credentials, you are likely to find some money to make it happen properly.

If you are complaining that the audience is crap and don t understand you, your project is the issue.

It s definitely possible to create good content with very little money but it s very hard to maintain the quality all the way to the end to the production, you need talent and discipline. 

I recently saw Shoplifters, the movie got a lot a attention and won a lot of prices ( and yes, was well funded) but honestly that definitely the kind of movie that can be done with a super small budget.

I did a fair amount of grading/ post production for indie movies, mostly shorts, you can see that the directors were more focused on shooting expensive equipement than really focusing on their script/skills.

But couple of times, I also meet very talent emerging directors that, in the same shooting conditions made very high quality movies.

But to really get produced properly, I think you either need to make a decent indie feature with no money, or very successful shorts and have a feature script ready.

No one is going to come to you if you are no one with big dreams and no actual material.

I think all those platform are really looking for new quality content, and are willing to fund all kind of projects, I think the issues is more down to the filmmakers with unoriginal obsessive zombie movies projects .

 

 

 

And yet Bird Box the Zombie apocalypse, strangely ripped off from War of the Worlds, seems to have been made into a film. I heard praises of it, and was genuinely curious to watch it. I can't say it was terrible. But it certainly wasn't original and the story could have been a lot better. 

[Trek of Joy]

14 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Yes, this 100%. Sometimes a lot of the Netflix Originals just look and feel like they are trying too hard. When some of the better movies and films are simply about story and less with all the crazy explosions and fancy (and expensive) special effects and stuff. If the story is good, viewers don't care!

The Fast and Furious franchise - as just one example - shows if the explosions are big enough and the story is an afterthought, people will still watch. Films like F&F are easy to translate to non-english speaking audiences, so they have the potential to reach a wider audience globally. Netflix is still relatively new as a creator, and they're certainly trying to cover a lot of bases with original content, some works better than others. But they're still cranking out a number of great shows and original films. Just like any studio, there will be duds.

[Video Hummus]

44 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

The Fast and Furious franchise - as just one example - shows if the explosions are big enough and the story is an afterthought, people will still watch. Films like F&F are easy to translate to non-english speaking audiences, so they have the potential to reach a wider audience globally. Netflix is still relatively new as a creator, and they're certainly trying to cover a lot of bases with original content, some works better than others. But they're still cranking out a number of great shows and original films. Just like any studio, there will be duds.

Yes, I agree. Throw enough money at something with the right faces and it will still make money. 

[Jonesy Jones]

So if you haven't heard, Apple is officially announcing it's streaming service on March 25th. I'm predicting something similar to Sling, a la cart subscriptions. However, perhaps Apple is able to muscle up some sweet subscription packages as well. Regardless, I'm hoping for a more centralized viewing experience, that simultaneously allows small filmmakers like myself to put my content where the masses' patterns of behavior already are. Will be months before it's actually launched, and months to years before it catches... if it does. 

It's cool that Roku seems to be a part of it, so non proprietary. I hope Apple gets it right.

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/03/11/apple-media-event-march-25/?fbclid=IwAR2j3n5aMX0Y2_U_754Lg_MLr6pq-QTi1uKHvo_BQ1riJA-Gcxx0Uvo7GCM

[Mokara]

On 2/2/2019 at 6:36 PM, Hans Punk said:

I think Apple are way too late to the party...like an arrogant drunk waving his wallet around.

Apple won’t surpass Netflix and Amazon because they’ve insisted on being too proprietary in their thinking and have no innovation sparkle under its current dictatorship. It is essential these days for consumers to have choice of platforms to view streamed content. People expect everything to be available on a phone, laptop,desktop,TV and totally agnostic to which manufacture of peripheral you are viewing it on. Apple TV is an example of the last clinging attempt of Apple to lock and control mass-market consumers into an Apple streaming ecosystem. Apple could have been pioneers at the streaming market - if they had just relinquished their proprietary hardware mindset and invested earlier in original quality content creation, thinking about the user experience first, then work backwards - I guess  like Mr Jobs probably would have done it.

 

That is absolutely NOT how Mr. Jobs would have done it. He was all about control and squeezing competition out, that means proprietary everything. That was his thing.

Steve Jobs believed that he knew what the consumer wanted better than what they knew they wanted (he said so himself). You got what he gave you, he packaged it as "hip" and got opinion leaders to buy in to an elitist image knowing that the sheep would follow. That, together with absolute control over the ecosystem, was his business plan. It was NOT a consumer friendly business plan, consumers were gullible chumps there to be exploited by sophisticated marketing.

On 2/5/2019 at 8:22 PM, Video Hummus said:

Yes, this 100%. Sometimes a lot of the Netflix Originals just look and feel like they are trying too hard. When some of the better movies and films are simply about story and less with all the crazy explosions and fancy (and expensive) special effects and stuff. If the story is good, viewers don't care!

You mean like Russian Doll?