Tag Archives: fred wilson

Broken Windows

Fred Wilson wrote a piece on his blog today complaining about the film business’ distribution model. Fred wrote in part that:

denying customers the films they want, on the devices they want to watch them, when they want to watch them is not a great business model. . . . [Studio executives] insist that they need their windows. They argue they need to manage access to their films to extract every last dollar from the market. That just doesn’t make sense to me. If they went direct to their customers, offered their films at a reasonable price (say $5/view net to them), and if they made their films available day one everywhere in the world, I can’t see how they wouldn’t make more money.

While I have no allegiance to the current business model, I understand it. Producers of any new film hope to see it distributed in a number of distribution windows starting with an exclusive theatrical release and continuing through to wide release on multiple distribution platforms typically over the course of 12-18 months.

Wilson advocates simultaneous “streeting” across all distribution platforms. As technology improves, the lines of each traditional distribution window are blurring and will be replaced with something more akin to what Fred is advocating.

Even so, I can’t help thinking that audiences might lose something valuable in the process – maybe even movie theaters themselves. That would be ironic since movie execs sounded similar alarms when television was the disrupting technology in the 1950s. Then as now, movie theaters survived – but for how long?

What follows is most of what I wrote in response to Fred’s post with grammatical tweaking and references to other commenters omitted:

There are two . . . significant obstacles to simultaneously “streeting” movies across all distribution windows.

1. Movie theaters are a limited high-value distribution channel. There are only so many movie theaters and so many seats in those theaters. Only a small fraction of the movies produced each year get a theatrical release in the US. Foreign distributors look at a US theatrical release as a quality marker (this, despite the fact that international revenues generally account for 70% of a film’s budget). So a domestic theatrical in it of itself drives the value of foreign distribution rights up. This kicker in international revenues could not exist in its present form under a simultaneous street paradigm.

2. Allocation of marketing dollars. Movies and virtually every other product with novel elements have a distribution cycle, with demand for a well regarded/well marketed product highest at or near inception (e.g., the latest incarnation of any Apple product or Star Wars sequel). The costs of striking prints of the film – which are coming down as more theaters use digital projectors – and advertising (also called “P&A”) on a typical domestic release of a 1,000 screens or more are substantial. Studios/producers require millions in marketing dollars, sometimes in excess of the cost to make the movie, to theatrically release a movie in the United States.

The goal is to fill each and every seat of every screen in which the movie is shown to justify these marketing expenses (which, if successful, drives up the value of international revenues as noted above). That would not be possible if consumers had other, possibly more convenient choices that might dilute audience share at movie theaters. Although each exploitation window requires additional marketing spend, a successful US theatrical release can have a halo effect on subsequent windows (e.g., Titanic, the Twilight movies).

3. History of Industry Resistance to New Technologies. Lastly, the industry has always been hostile to new technologies. Silent movies were adverse to talkies which were against television which bristled to home video and so on to the present day.

The advent of on-demand viewing of movies in theatrical release is already part of an evolving theatrical release window. The industry needs time to adapt its model to the new demands of its audience. Change in the film business is inevitable even if it won’t come fast enough for the Fred Wilsons of the world.

The Economy From A VC’s Perspective

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own.

Venture Capitalist, Sequoia Capital put together a simplified slide presentation on start-ups and the economic downturn.

Less is more and this presentation simplifies a lot of the complexity of the current economic mess we’re all in. Be sure to check out slide #21 for the take away.

Many thanks to Fred Wilson’s blog A VC for alerting me to this.

The Bail Out

No matter our behavior, the economy fluctuates from boom to bust on a fairly predicable basis. However, the severity of a bust is based in part on group (read: global market) psychology and bad, unregulated choices (don’t get me started on so-called “free market” thinking!).

Right now, the group think is pretty pessimistic and we’re in dire need of the equivalent of a global prescription for Prozac. A downturn is not a question at this point; only the extent of the damage and the timing of the recovery remain up for grabs.

The bail out measure before Congress will by no means prove to be a panacea. I keep hoping they will find a better way since the legislation – despite all the money – will not alter the landscape of losses or willingness to lend. However, it will remove a barrier to lending and mitigate some of the negative thinking. So, the sooner Congress works it out, the better for all of us.

I was recently assured by an elder statesman in the business that the industry will continue to flourish as it has in prior recessions and during the Great Depression since people continue to spend on entertainment as an escape from bad news. Peter Bart smugly approved in his column in Monday’s Variety:

Compared to the turmoil on Wall Street, Hollywood seems like an object lesson in prudent management. That’s why billions keep flowing into the movie business even when other industries are starved for capital.

OK, I know that’s really not the reason. Sucker money traditionally flows to Hollywood because investors want to meet girls, attend parties with movie stars and say they’re business partners with Steven Spielberg. Nonetheless, it’s still surprising to count the big bucks involved in the DreamWorks deal or in Ryan Kavanaugh’s Relativity Media or in Media Rights Capital’s portfolio at a time when the rest of the economy is locked in a liquidity crisis.

Suddenly, Hollywood’s managers seem downright austere compared with the crazies at Lehman Brothers. And movie-star salaries are pathetic relative to Wall Street payouts.

I’m not sure I agree since the entertainment business – like most businesses – requires access to credit to run. MGM is already struggling to service its existing debt and like the banks and other financial businesses, may be unrecognizable from its present form down the road.

Even before the current market crisis, Dave McNary wrote in last week’s Variety :

Start with plenty of labor unrest, add in the global credit crunch along with the consequences of too many movies in the market, and combine that with foreign distributors getting cold feet for anything but blockbuster Hollywood product.

“Any one of these factors would depress the business, so having all of them at once was something of a perfect storm,” notes Charles Heaphy, senior VP at City National Bank’s entertainment division. “This is like being in a rowboat while there’s a hurricane going on.”

With respect to startups, Jason Calacanis wrote:

It’s my believe [sic] that the economic downturn will be much worse than it is today, and that 50-80% of the venture-backed startups currently operating will shut down or go on life-support (i.e. 3-4 folks working on them) within the next 18 months.

Make a list of every Web 2.0 startup to raise an A or B round and cross 80% of them off the list, because they will not make it to their next round of funding or profitability.

Tough times like these will require media and entertainment companies as well as startups to rethink their strategies for investment and growth for the foreseeable future.

It all sounds really, really bad.

It’s not enough that it’s hard to finance movies or a good idea; contend with getting distribution or vacillating VC’s; now you’ll have to work that much harder to even find potential investment let alone actual investors.

But the news may not be all bad. Money abhors a vacuum. There’s a lot of money out there sitting on the sidelines and plenty of people looking for places to put it; some of it from the most unlikely of places.

I’ve spoken to personal money managers whose sole duty is to make at least 20% on client money in good times and bad. Some of this money previously invested in oil, gas and securities but with these markets in turmoil, these investors are now looking for new investment opportunities. If bank financing dries up, private equity (e.g., hedge funds) – already a big player in motion picture financing – will likely replace it. Moreover, I recently had several discussions at the Toronto Film Festival and elsewhere with several emerging market financiers who all viewed the current US economic situation as a unique investment opportunity.

Let’s hope their optimism is contagious.



Although I have had a profile on Ryze and Linkedin for a while, I have no real interest in social networks like My Space and Facebook. Linkedin and Ryze are business networking sites while My Space and Facebook tend to appeal more to the young and the single than to the older married crowd for obvious reasons. Young people generally are “early adopters” who, given their marital status, actively seek out meeting new people. Older, married people not so much. However, given the latest marketing push for my law practice and on the advice of various law blogs, I plan on signing up for profiles on these sites. Most importantly, my daughter is heading into adolescence and I want to know more about the sites she surfs on despite family prohibitions.

I have been playing with the latest incarnation of the social networking site, Twitter, for the past month or so after reading about it on Fred Wilson’s blog. As NPR describes it, Twitter “imposes a limit of 140 characters for messages. In addition to appearing on the Web, Twitter entries pop up on the instant-messaging (IM) systems and cell phones of the user’s personal contact list.” Twitter seems destined to be the next big thing; marrying the multi-zillion dollar text messaging business on cell phones with a social networking website.

After signing up, I emailed a bunch of my more Web-savvy friends and clients to join me. The narcissistic charge I get from thinking that anyone might really care about what I was doing at any given moment became quite addictive. To my dismay, most of the people I invited tended to be more old (aka traditional) media than new despite their chronological age (i.e., they were mostly young). Apparently, they were NOT as web-savvy as me. With Twitter updates like “blowing my nose” and “making pancakes with the kids” as part of my Twitter-reportage, my audience was less than thrilled. Both my 20-something assistant and intern snickered at me and my newly found web hipness. They simply didn’t get it.

I must admit here that I really don’t get it either. But with fellow Twitterers like Barack Obama and David Letterman, clearly I am on to something. I quickly added Letterman and Barack to my Twitter friends list so that I could instantly receive the latest top 10 list entry or Obama campaign bromide texted to my cell phone. With access to Redsox play by play (the Mets and Yankees next please!) and possible “Twittersodes” of the “L Word,” Twitter is at the crossroads of integrating television programming, the ‘net and text messaging (if the cell carriers are willing to reduce the costs). I am going to continue to play with the service and I’ll keep you posted – on Twitter, of course.