Frank Lunn of mobile content distributor Thundersquid Incorporated hits it right on the head when he observes that "Content is king, but distribution is emperor." The goal of making work is usually to get it seen, and while the major media interests no longer have a stranglehold on distribution, a significant bottleneck still exists for the independent player in this area.

So it is incumbent upon the grassroots artist to shift their focus from one revolution to the next. The Desktop Revolution has been well digested. The Desktop Revolution is in fact OVER. The Distribution Revolution has begun. And to paraphrase Malcolm X, the Distribution Revolution will be televised... and "mobi-cized".

We are witnessing a progression of independent content distribution through three distinct arenas: festival distribution, online distribution and wireless distribution. Each of these possesses its own characteristic pros and cons, and they are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact, the savvy creator leverages seamlessly and effectively across all three.

Festival distribution is the de facto (G)old Standard for independents seeking to display their work on the international stage. Not only is there great prestige associated with selection by festivals such as Cannes, Venice, Berlin and Sundance, but these venues also provide qualification for Academy Award nomination, among other honors. Furthermore, the quality control which festival juries (arguably) provide transform the biggest of these events into effective markets for the acquisition of independent films by various distributors.

But the most significant aspect of festival venues, unmatched by online and wireless distribution, is the collective filmgoing experience.

There's nothing like a room full of energy. The communal experience of watching a film together - of experiencing laughs, thrills, and emotional highs and lows as a group - can be incredibly visceral. For a filmmaker, there is nothing more gratifying (and often nerve-wracking) than sitting in the midst of an audience as the effects of their labor ripple through the crowd. This live connection with viewers is a vital aspect of filmmaking for the festival circuit.

Of course, we've also witnessed some pretty impressive "alien invasions" in recent years. Online distribution takes the audience experience described above, chops it to bits (or bytes), and spreads it out over a much broader viewer base: millions as opposed to hundreds or thousands. Initially, the intensity with which certain online films caught fire surprised even the creators of these works. However, as animators (such as Victor Navone of "Alien Song" fame) began to leapfrog over aspiring throngs of job applicants and land studio gigs with their work, random viral distribution by strangers quickly evolved into clever viral strategies by independent filmmakers.

Naturally, the major studios were not far behind with their own, sometimes ham-fisted, attempts at "viral" online campaigns - learning lessons along the way as the inauthentic were quickly sniffed out by savvy viewers.

Those independent artists and filmmakers who brave "The Wild Wild West” of online sites such as YouTube find themselves swimming in the most Darwinian of waters: with flying kiwis competing against skating dogs for attention. Creative effort and production values carry no guarantee of popularity, and humorous off-the-cuff content typically rules the day. While the animated short film "Kiwi" and the ubiquitous "Skating Dog" video are each extremely popular in their own right, you can easily guess which gets the biggest show of hands in terms of familiarity, whether the question is posed to audiences in Germany or China.

(It should be noted, however, that despite their differences a poetic kinship exists between a kiwi who dreams of flying and a dog who loves to skate.)

And then there is the "Brave New World" of wireless distribution. Interestingly, the incorporation of cameras into cell phones has been a great boon to animators, filmmakers and game designers - expanding memory and screen size to provide a sufficient platform for wireless games and video content.

Third-generation (3G) cellular technology consists of wide-area cellular networks that have evolved to incorporate high-speed internet access and video telephony. While GSM technology requires a download to your handset, 3G supports streaming video on demand. Japan has been the first country to introduce 3G on a large commercial scale, and media companies such as TV ON, V CAST and MobiTV have all gotten into the act.

Although as of this writing, wireless music distribution has surpassed video telephony as the "killer app", it is only a matter of time before the aesthetic guidelines and business models of wireless video come into their own, especially as mobile handsets are increasingly used as receivers that route wireless content to full-sized LCD monitors.

This development speaks to the anticipated fourth-generation (4G): a fully IP-based integrated network predicated upon the convergence of wired and wireless protocols and technologies including computers, cell phones and consumer electronics, capable of providing speeds ranging from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps in outdoor and indoor environments - enabling the highest throughput yet possible. Heady stuff! :-)

The term "user generated content" (UGC) encompasses everything from animated shorts to home movies to fan videos for rock bands such as Incubus and Buckcherry. The nomenclature indicates media content produced by "end-users" as opposed to traditional corporate media sources. However, the term "user" is rather biased, referring to an outmoded distinction between what can simply be described as large-scale and small-scale "publishers". Accordingly, I propose substituting the term "grassroots content" as a more accurate representation of the ground-up origins of such work.

With the proliferation of grassroots content, top-down monologue is replaced by a dialogue of work from an eclectic variety of sources. And while there is certainly more crap to wade through with the unfettered dissemination of content from every direction imaginable, there are also little gems and nuggets to be had. It's not too hard to filter the wheat from the chaff.

One fascinating area of grassroots production is machinima. Machinima stands for “machine cinema” - a film genre consisting of movies produced with real-time interactive 3D game engines. Machinima is an example of emergent gameplay - putting game tools to unexpected creative ends - and ranges from the video capture of live game sessions "played" as a story, through to the actual hacking of game engine code for even more interesting effects.

Although characterized by cruder production values than those normally associated with major animated features, machinima provides an affordable point of entry for many grassroots filmmakers by reducing the knowledge and overhead normally required to model, rig and animate 3D characters. An entire culture has sprouted around the genre, with a wide array of supporting tools, websites, discussion boards, and even DVD compilations.

A popular machinima pioneer is "Red vs. Blue: The Blood Gulch Chronicles". "RvB" is a machinima comic science fiction video series created by Rooster Teeth Productions and distributed via the internet and DVD. The series chronicles the story of two opposing teams of soldiers fighting a civil war in the middle of desolate Blood Gulch canyon, in a parody of first-person shooter games, military life, and science fiction films.

Initially intended to be a short series of six to eight episodes, "RvB" achieved significant popularity following its April 2003 internet premiere, and Rooster Teeth subsequently decided to extend the series into multiple "seasons".

Visual artist and arts administrator Susi Spicoli has broken unique ground in the genre of machinima with her "second life" (SL) art gallery. What is noteworthy about Spicoli is that she comes from a background of traditional creative media and art spaces. Already a photographer in real life, as well as the owner of Susi's Mountain Gallery space, it was soon after "entering the grid" that she became enamored with the possibilities afforded by this unique new medium for creative expression.

In a relatively short period of time, Spicoli has become a leading administrator and resource provider behind the machinima movement. Alongside her SL photography gallery, she has recently opened an all-machinima showcase, handing out small "spaces" to filmmakers and enabling each to build independent SL "theatres" for their work.

The aesthetic "limitations" of machinima are being stretched by independent artists such as Tom Jantol of Croatia, whose "Cirque du Machinima - Cuckoo Clock" is a fine example of the Surrealist tradition being played out online. On the aesthetics of (and potential market for) his work, Jantol writes:

"Here is the first of my machinima circus movies (2007). I'm planning to make one each month. Why circus? Well, besides being a fan of Cirque du Soleil, this is the perfect form for things that interest me in machinima. Every movie will be one short circus act based on one simple premise: everything is possible in a circus, especially in an animated one. So, along with humanoid characters in "Cirque du Machinima", performers will be toys, all kinds of strange mechanisms, sculptures, bicycles, cars, trees, everyday things. But the main star is machinima itself. I will try to emphasize the very things that make machinima unique and promote tools of the trade in scenery, actors, even story. This movie is also the first step of the journey called "Commercial independent machinima, is it possible?". Any time now we will witness the explosion of "pay-for-content" video sharing sites. Can machinima authors profit (literally) from this upcoming trend, and can machinima compete in such big markets? Those are the two main questions, and I took one year off from my day job to find answers."

Another inventive application of machinima are abstract explorations in "data bending" - in this case using the Carmageddon game engine. Centimental creates abstract movies by editing the data that controls the crumple behavior effected when cars crash in the game.

By applying excessive numerical values and then repeatedly triggering the "bodywork trashed" powerup via a cheat code, the player's vehicle is transformed into a jagged mass of mangled polygons - transforming into a virtual mobile abstract sculpture. With this work, machinima takes that final step in which the means of production completely sublimates itself to the visual result.

What would any new technology be without the "validation" of a porn application? From the printing press, to VHS cassettes, to machinima, the influence of the porn industry in exploiting the latest technology to its fullest should not be underestimated. In fact, one could say we owe only the military-industrial complex a greater "debt of gratitude" for the remarkable tools currently at our disposal for independent content creation.

Naturally, Madison Avenue is quick to jump on the bandwagon of any trend among the targeted youth demographic. So, what better way to look hip than by creating a machinima commercial? Only in this case, we have faux "machinima": high-end CGI tools employed to create a low-end machinima "look". Commercial art imitates game imitates life.

The irony of this popular advertising campaign by Smith & Foulkes and Nexus Productions is that the relatively crude modeling, texturing and animation are only acceptable as a response to the "user-generated" machinima trend. You would not normally see such work touted as a production standard by these firms. This simply goes to show that where there is money to be made, the corporate world is quick to follow. Which is a perfect segue to...

...corporate interests: the insinuation of big business into any field of potential revenue and profit, including those of "grassroots" origin.

There is an inevitability to this - one that independents would do well to study and navigate, if only to avoid being crowded out, or worse: exploited. The word "business" is often anathema to artists: viewed as "dirty", or at best as a "necessary evil". But when seen as a means of ensuring current and future work, attention to "business" suddenly becomes a necessity: as essential to a working artist's survival as eating and sleeping.

Let's start by taking a look at what you're up against as an independent creator, at what you may in fact be complicit in "supporting" without even realizing it: New Technology meets Old School exploitation.

Following are actual quotes by the leaders of major media companies: the traditional "gatekeepers" of content distribution. To be fair, these are fine corporations without which you would not be reading this article (although only because I'm paying them). Nevertheless, the comments reflect a viewpoint that independent artists and filmmakers all too quickly comply with. Let's editorialize on each of them for a moment...

"User-generated content is one of the key elements to our strategy."
Translation: whether YOU are paying attention to the revenue-generating potential of your work or not, we sure are!

"We support the independent creative community."
By "allowing" you to distribute and promote your work freely for our profit.

"We fundamentally believe in the social web and people's ability to participate."
Well, let's see... the internet was a free social forum in the first place, prior to commercial interests descending en masse, staking out territory and locking it up. So with this in mind, a self-congratulatory pat on the back for "allowing us to participate" seems a tad disingenuous.

"We encourage animators to promote the work they post."
Translation: we've outsourced our PR costs... to YOU!

"Sharing revenues is difficult, due to varying regulations in each region."
This is one of my all-time favorites. Corporations navigate varying business regulations as a matter of course every day when it comes to generating revenues, yet are suddenly at a loss on how to proceed when it comes to sharing those revenues with the content creators? Riiiiiight.

"Instead of offering money to users, we offer fame."
Try getting your car repaired or your lawn mowed with this carrot.

So, it's time to smarten up. We may not change anything we're doing as a result (although 99% of the time, we will) but at least we'll be aware of the landscape, the players and the stakes.

Let's turn to online revenue streams first. When you post to sites like YouTube, you’re basically “giving it away” (unless represented by a distributor). And we're used to this. You wouldn't pay to view someone's uploaded karaoke video, so why would you pay for an animated short on the same site, right? There is a precedent of FREE distribution online: no one wants to pay, and you lose eyeballs when you charge. Any revenue to the artist typically comes from pay-per-click (PPC) ads, syndicated distribution of popular series, and ancillary merchandising (which requires additional effort to design, create, promote, sell & ship). Unfortunately, these revenue streams often plateau at a level unsustainable for the artist's livelihood. Hence the need for a day job. ;-)

Revver.com's front page is a good example of the Darwinian playlist environment common to many sites. New videos join the "Recently Added" playlist and (if popular) find themselves in the "Most Watched" playlist or (if fortunate) pimped in the "Editor's Picks" playlist. Only the strong survive. Playlists for "Featured Creators" and "Featured Collections" are typical, as is mutual "back scratching" between the online and wireless worlds: note how V CAST is a collection on Revver, while Revver is a channel on V CAST (Verizon being the mobile carrier).

AtomFilms is a site that generates commercial revenues from embedded advertising, with a profit-sharing model for independent filmmakers. AtomFilms licenses and develops content, distributes to a broad audience across the internet, broadcast and wireless, and pays royalties to artists. Distribution partners include Comedy Central, Spike TV, Verizon and BellSouth.

It's worth noting that gutsy "little" AtomFilms is actually the tip of a mammoth iceberg: a service of MTV Networks which is in turn owned by media goliath Viacom. Independent filmmakers who post to these "artist friendly" sites do well to follow the money trail and take a keen, business-minded look at how their percentage stacks up against the corporate take. In some cases, the vast distribution afforded by these online venues is worth the skimpy royalties. In other cases, artists may find that they do better with a higher percentage from self-distribution on their own sites - despite the narrower net that is cast.

The current "Gold Rush" is taking place in the wireless market, where some lucky prospectors will strike it rich while many others go bust, and a few in the middle eke out a modest living.

In contrast to the internet, there is a precedent of fee-base downloads to mobile handsets which could bode well for independent content revenue. We are all quite comfortable with paying a fee for ring tones, wallpapers and songs. Apple has established the magic $0.99 price point quite nicely, and this has become a de facto standard which other services emulate and/or skew. The fact that these fees are conveniently routed to your credit card or phone bill doesn't hurt, either.

In the wireless market, users pay carriers a fee when they stream or download, and the artist eventually receives a percentage of this. How much depends on the number of bites taken out of the "mobile dollar" before it reaches the artist. It is common for each agent in the wireless relay to take half of what is handed to them. Therefore, on a given "dollar" download, we could see the mobile carrier take fifty cents, followed by a take of 25 cents for the international distributor, with the remaining quarter being split by a domestic distributor and the artist (who in this scenario ends up with a little more than 12 cents on the dollar). Artists who seek to reduce middle men by either distributing regionally or approaching carriers directly may find their work under-represented in the former scenario, and plainly ignored in the latter. A good financial return is predicated upon the breadth of distribution factored against the royalty percentage, and for an artist motivated to cast a wide net, the trends are promising.

Service-based revenue is decreasing for the wireless carriers, with cheap/"free" internet phone service like Skype moving to mobile handsets. So carriers increasingly resort to content-based revenue for their bread and butter. And they need to feed the pipe constantly. Which is good for you, the creator. By the next decade the number of cell phone users globally will have grown from the current 1.5 billion to a staggering 2.6 billion, one-third of whom will have access to high-speed wireless broadband service. Think you can get 0.0001% of those 840 million broadband subscribers to download your work just once a month? If so, you're now pulling in $126,000 annually on your 12.5 cent per download royalties! (Of course, the carrier is making more than half a million on your work, but that's the law of the jungle.)

This statistic made my jaw drop. It has that effect on most people. Some think in response: "That's sad.", while others think to themselves: "That's a market!" Do we expect that all of these 12-year-olds will "outgrow" the phone, that their hunger for services and entertainment will decrease? Not likely.

The "cell phone" is truly evolving into a "mobile concierge": a communication and entertainment hub used for everything from making calls, sending email, web browsing, day planning, gaming, music & video enjoyment, event ticketing, taxi service... (if your brow furrowed at those last two, pop over to Europe or Asia sometime for a vision of your future). :-)

Here's another nugget: many developing nations are skipping land line technology and going straight to wireless. What does this mean to you? Simply this: the entertainment you create can be marketed in countries with NO TVs and NO computers. Nations that cannot adequately broadcast the major networks can stream your animated short. Of course, our $0.99 download may be worth only 10 cents or so in China or Africa, but while these markets are "poorer", they are also considerably larger.

Let's take a break from market talk to examine the fun-filled world of development and creative rights, by first looking at the average network/studio deal.

Typically, the creator "fortunate" enough to cut a deal with a major studio surrenders all creative rights to their work - especially if they are an independent lacking clout. The studio assumes complete creative control, save that which they may agree to delegate to the creator (who is at this point effectively an employee on his or her own film). The project then enters "Development Hell", which has more circles than Dante's nine.

If the film is eventually made and released, the creator may receive a nominal license fee and 5-10% backend participation of NOTHING (once the studio has finished cooking the books to show no profit on the enterprise.) Mad props to the creator who manages to negotiate a percentage of the gross vs. the net.

Contrast this with the Brave New World of grassroots content creation: work made and distributed by an eclectic mix of independents: including many former studio pros. This new landscape is characterized by the creator's retention of rights and creative control, quick access to the market (with equally quick feedback on the reception of the work), real revenue from fee-based downloads, independent branding, and a global scope leveraged on wireless distribution.

Although a truly successful and sustained business model has yet to emerge, many distributors advise targeting a 12 to 25-year-old international demographic with 60 to 90-second “mobisodes” priced around $0.99 per download (or with subscription fees ranging $4.99-$24.99 per month). Engaging, humorous content that may feature recurring characters (but is self-contained by episode) is recommended, as is an emphasis on content that translates well across cultures.

There are caveats, of course. Wireless carriers still control the pipeline: everything from access to billing. Despite their need for content, the carriers will NOT come knocking on your door looking for the latest gem on your hard drive. Furthermore, most carriers will only deal with artists represented by distributors with whom they have contractual relationships. So it is up to the creator to "shake hands" with suitable distributors (such as ThunderSquid) and devise appropriate distribution strategies.

Creators must also address small-screen aesthetic parameters: simple & engaging content employing bright colors, close-ups and limited motion at 15fps, with complete stories told within a 90-second span of time. In terms of hardware compatibility, there are currently 400-500 different handsets in the world. While this tends to be more of an issue for game developers (whose work relies upon buttons and keystrokes) wireless filmmakers can also run into uneven format support, memory limitations and the like.

The good news for independent creators is that the major studios are still sitting on the fence regarding new content for wireless - with current strategies built around repurposed episodes of broadcast shows ( "Lost", "Desperate Housewives"...). The other piece of good news is that the difference between “branded” and “unbranded” content (read "studio" vs. "indie") is not so dramatic on wireless: an average of 10,000 downloads per month for branded properties vs. 8,000 DLs per month for unbranded work.

As a parting observation, I leave you with the words of entrepreneur John McHattie, who observes that you must be "cute and smart" in your approach to the market. While John's advice probably applies to any business, it is particularly relevant to fickle, multi-tasking, on-the-go wireless audiences.

As independent content continues to revolutionize the world of entertainment, creators themselves will continue to grow and adapt to the landscape as they change it. It's an exciting time, a promising time, and it's about time.

Kevin Geiger
Los Angeles
2007

If you have an article, tutorial, essay or other content that you would like to submit for the Monthly Feature, please send mail to: monthly@animationcoop.org