According to a number of financial and media experts, including Forbes and The Hollywood Reporter, and reputable film schools such as the New York Film Academy, Netflix tends to be viewed as the “golden goose” of film distribution, given its sizable share of the ‘video-on-demand’ market.
This said, Netflix as the one and only option for Native / Indie filmmakers may not be as viable as it seems.
Here are four big myths that contribute to the belief that filmmakers are not a success unless they are monetizing on Netflix.
See Related:
Anti-Netflix Campaign Is ‘Drowning Native Voices’ Says Native Director
Young: ‘No, I Will Not Deactivate My Netflix Account’
Native Actors Walk off Set of Adam Sandler Movie After Insults to Women, Elders
Myth 1: Getting on Netflix is fairly simple and straightforward.
“It’s a lot harder to get a film on Netflix than it was five years ago,” said Janet Brown, CEO of FilmBuff, a digital distributor for independent films in an interview with Digiday. “The platform doesn’t want everything, just films its subscribers will love — especially recognizable content.”
Brown and other distribution experts say this presents significant obstacles for the average indie filmmaker. They may not have the connections, access to reputable distribution platforms, or a sales agent who can facilitate deals on their behalf.
New York Film Academy Student Advisor Zeke agrees.
“Unless you have some serious contacts in and around the Netflix arena, your odds are against you,” he says. “Somewhat ironically, video streaming itself is killing your chance of getting on Netflix—with DVD sales through the floor, distributors are reluctant to take on independent movies in this market since the returns from Netflix are so low.”
“From a viewer’s perspective, there’s a lot of reason to love Netflix. I appreciate how Netflix serves me, but do the doc filmmakers feel the love and get a fair shake in their deals with the company? I asked documentary directors about their dealings with the company, and they seemed by and large not miffed, as I’d assumed they would be. If anything, they were mostly resigned,” said Tom Roston, writing for PBS’s POV documentary blog.
Myth 2: Netflix deals are very lucrative.
Netflix only pays a small one or two-year license fee for unlimited viewing, hence the feeling by some of the documentary directors that Roston surveyed that indie filmmakers aren’t served well by the organization’s existing payment model.
“Unlike most of the other platforms, Netflix doesn’t pay you per view since it isn’t contingent on ad revenue. Expect a four-figure deal, and praise the stars if you get five figures,” says New York Film Academy Student Advisor Zeke.
For some filmmakers, just being on Netflix is a win because of the perceived value in getting exposure for their film even if the money isn’t that great.
Myth 3: Once your product is on Netflix, success is guaranteed.
Most online services, Netflix included, don’t offer anything other than their platform as a means of streaming so filmmakers and their teams have to be highly-skilled multi-taskers with PR, Marketing and Project Management including Finance.
For ordinary filmmakers with a standard Netflix licensing deal – success is not guaranteed regardless of how talented a filmmaker happens to be. Film distribution expert Jason Brubaker suggests that being media savvy with good connections willing and able to promote one’s project is useful along with industry buzz from the festival circuit. But having a huge and loyal following already is a must – it’s a great selling point for distributors.
Myth 4: Filmmakers won’t get a better deal anywhere else.
Many distributors advise indie filmmakers to not pin their hopes on one platform – especially large studio-driven platforms like Netflix.
“For most films Netflix is an ancillary market so, hopefully, the filmmakers have made some bread during a theatrical or video-on-demand release,” says Roston.
Specialized streaming services and distribution aggregators tend to agree.
“We expect filmmakers to find other paid distribution outlets for their films,” said NativeFlix CEO Tim Harjo via email. “In fact, we do not require exclusive licensing agreements because we understand that filmmakers want and need to raise additional revenues from their films elsewhere.”
To this end the Self-Distribution Model has taken off in the past few years with specialized streaming services like Amerind Media Group’s NativeFlix and digital aggregators like Distribber (owned by Indiegogo) that have direct links to a number of popular streaming services including iTunes. Distribber requires fees for submission with no guarantee that content will be automatically accepted. While they say they have a good track record, they do offer a refund of fees minus a nominal processing fee should the project be rejected.
For Indigenous filmmakers NativeFlix is another option. Their library includes critically acclaimed feature films, television series, and documentaries about Indigenous people from around the World; in addition to home-grown North American talent, partners also come from Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. They have not required a submission fee for reviewing a film for possible inclusion in their library and do not plan to.
Their Cooperative Content Distribution Model means that 60 percent of subscription revenues and 70 percent of film rental earnings are shared with content owners.
“In the future, we may implement a larger “free tier” which may include advertising. Those advertising revenues would be shared with content owners as well,” says Harjo.
Another distinct advantage is that because NativeFlix offers a specialized service, the onus isn’t always entirely on the filmmaker / content provider to handle promotion themselves and drive customer interest to their product on the platform.
“By aggregating Indigenous content in one place, we can and do market our library such that all our films receive additional promotion and interest. We also do limited promotions of individual titles as well,” Harjo explained.
“It’s difficult for all the filmmakers within the larger Indigenous film and television industry to promote their films individually using separate web sites and online services and expect each of them to do well. Which is why we believe NativeFlix has and will continue to prove itself as a vital part in the growth of this emerging industry.”
Though breaking even and turning a nice profit are worthy objectives, concerns relating to the cultural sensitivity of the organizations Native American filmmakers align themselves with strikes a chord with Harjo, and NativeFlix developed their mission statement and curating ethos with this in mind.
“We generally do not even consider films made before 1970. We are selective with our content to ensure consistency with our mission,” he says.
“That being said, we do have some films that push the envelope. By that I mean, some of our films depict issues that are controversial, however we believe they add value to the societal issues they address, in addition to being entertaining.”
Follow ICTMN Correspondent Lisa J. Ellwood on Twitter at www.twitter.com/IconicImagery