Bringing VOD to the Dinner Table.

VOD won’t kill the theatrical release, but it may just help save independent filmmaking.

For the last decade, VOD has been the bastard cousin of theatrical and DVD distribution. Before the much-buzzed about HDNet day-and-date release of Soderbergh’s Bubble, the idea of on-demand television viewing was associated primarily with porn and boxing. Initially, the Bubble experiment put a bad aftertaste in the mouths of most theater owners and directors alike. Theater owners felt that a simultaneous release on pay-per-view and in theaters would be bad for their business, eroding revenues and further commoditizing the theatrical experience. Directors, blinded by the bright lights and spurious prestige of a theatrical release, saw VOD releases as dirty; a dumping ground for second-rate films from hack filmmakers.  No one took it seriously as a viable distribution outlet capable of wide viewership and a real rate of return.

Fast forward to 2011. VOD hasn’t completely lost its sleazy finish, but it getting close.  It’s picked up a number of supporters in the indie distribution world, and it may be their open armed embrace of the technology that has led to their survival.   The two most well known companies, Magnolia Pictures and IFC Entertainment, have partnerships with cable providers like Comcast allowing them to offer movies on branded V.O.D. channels on the same day they were released in theaters.  These companies believe that this strategy gives films a wider audience (and as a result, more opportunity for profit) than it would have with just a theatrical and DVD release. According to Geoff Gilmore, chief creative officer of Tribeca Enterprises: “Independent films are failing in the theatrical box office all over America right now — 80 per cent of them don’t make $100,000,” he said. “We have to find new ways of marketing this work that involves a range of different things that are not just the traditional theatrical system.”

This past year, Magnolia Pictures took things even further with its release of All Good Things.  Using what has been termed an Ultra VOD strategy; the film played on VOD first, and then rolled into theaters.  While the $20 million Ryan Gosling/Kristen Dunst thriller only made a paltry $644,535 theatrically worldwide, it performed spectacularly on V.O.D., selling over $5 million in rentals priced at about $10.99. Even some of the more mainstream “art house” distribs have taken note. Seven months ago, Focus Features launched its own VOD label, Focus World.  If a more conservative operation such as this is willing to take a chance it’s probably because they see some real potential to diversify their offerings with minimal risk.

Continuing this trend, Filmmaker magazine has started a VOD calendar that curates the top independent VOD releases each month.

So what does this mean?  Well, if you’re a progressive filmmaker not wedded to a traditional release strategy, it means you now have more opportunity to make money doing what you love to do.   The days of getting a wide theatrical release and a $20 million P&A commitment are over.  But imagine any Comcast or Verizon FIOs subscriber being just one click away (and perhaps $10.99) from your film. It’s much easier to sell a customer on an impulse purchase from the safety of their couch.  They don’t have to go anywhere.  And as more and more people get comfortable making purchases via their internet-enabled tv, potential profit margins will grow and grow.

Now I’m not suggesting that filmmaking should be all about the bottom line.  But it’s naïve to think that quality non-mainstream films will continue to get funded if they can’t offer any potential for profit. Art is a business just like any other and to be apathetic to that fact is just plain dumb. As technology continues to make the home viewing environment both more theatrical and more connected, the opportunity for a film to reach its audience at the quality in which it was intended is becoming a greater reality.