Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Sandel's avatar

Stacey—if you can generalize—

What's a plausible mix of the various platforms in the marketing plan for a low-budget (sub-$1MM) feature?

Of the four rough distribution categories:

- theatrical

- licensed streaming

- ad-supported revenue share

- self distribution

… I assume a good marketing plan would arrange these sequentially rather than in parallel. But what dollar allocations work best? Should marketing bucks, in a pitch to investors, be divided equally among them?

(Looks like theatrical has shriveled into a loss-leader for indies, so maybe it's a dispensable cost.)

Is it best to stagger the use of these 4 categories over time? I presume a licensed sale to Hulu, e.g., precludes a simultaneous exploitation on an ad-supported platform like Amazon, etc.

So: how to talk intelligently about this to investors?

Expand full comment
Nanou Matteson's avatar

Hi Stacey. Always love your posts! I have a question. I'm producing an ULB feature film in Philly in late summer/ early fall and we're looking at distribution options. The director told me about Bingeable. Have you heard of it? Basically, Bingeable is a way for people to use social media to market and directly sell movies.

If we were to explore this, it brings up a question for me about cast, so I thought I'd ask you, since you're so up on all these things. In terms of budget allocation, if we went a Bingeable-type route, do you think it would be better to go with an influencer instead of a name actor? Clearly, the acting standard has to be high, but that doesn't always mean name cast, as you know. And also an influencer could have a supporting, not starring, role.

Thoughts?

Thank you!!

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts