When determining the short term trends within the Australian feature film industry, the development and transformation of the industry’s distribution landscape is largely impacting on current business models and revenue systems (Screen Australia 2015). It is integral to understand the current changes and short term trends occurring in distribution in order to recognise how the film industry is transforming and transcending into the digital platform, moving away from the traditional governed and monopolised structure of distribution (Screen Australia 2015). As distributors, exhibitors and producers move towards the digital online world of distribution, the Australian film industry is needing to rapidly adapt in order to remain a high revenue industry (Harris 2013). As such, keeping up with the nationwide trends and emerging technologies will allow for future development and an overall successful Australian film industry (Harris 2007).
Traditional Distribution
Australian film distribution is conventionally ruled by a monopoly of production studios and gatekeepers (the distributors and exhibitors) that control a film’s release. The ruling six distribution studios are ‘Roadshow/Warner Bros, Fox, Universal, Sony, Walt Disney and Paramount’ (Harris 2013, p9). Despite being Hollywood based companies, these studios are integral in overseeing the marketing and distribution of Australian films. As a result of this control, local Australian filmmakers struggle to release their films at multiplexes as they have been filled with films from ‘parent and partnered companies’, leaving little ‘shelf space’ (Harris 2013, p10). In this traditional structure of distribution, the only hope for local films to be distributed is through independent and art-house cinemas (Harris 2013). In essence, the overarching problem with this governed structure is that local Australian films and independent filmmakers are restricted by the constraints set by the film distributors and exhibitors, often resulting in films that are unable to be marketed to or seen by their intended audience (Harris 2013).
The Australian film industry relies on a systematic model for the distribution and release of feature films. The traditional business model for distribution exists as a release chain which structures the order in which films are released. The release chain order begins with the domestic theatrical release, where a film is shown in cinemas (Screen Australia 2015). From here, the film is released to the home entertainment market such as DVD, Blu-ray, download-to-own and online rental (Screen Australia 2015). This is subsequently followed by subscription television and lastly, free-to-air television. Within this release chain, there is a structured ‘window’; a period of time (120 days) between the release of the film in cinemas to the release on home entertainment (Screen Australia 2015). The long gap between release on home entertainment has seen the need for audiences to source the film elsewhere, looking to online platforms and often resulting in piracy (Harris 2007). As such, distribution is becoming a subject of crisis within the Australian film industry (Harris Dolgopolov & Stevens 2015). Filmmakers are having to seek more innovative ways of distribution to earn revenues and overcome the threat of piracy.
Digital Distribution
With the rise of digital distribution, the film industry is undergoing profound structural changes to the traditional model of distribution. In the traditional model of distribution the ‘filmmakers’ access to screens, and to audiences is restricted’ (Harris 2007 p6). This is due to the gatekeepers who have an overarching control of the content that is being delivered. In the conventional landscape of distribution the gatekeepers predominantly had the power, they had the ability and resources to fund the business of production (Luckman and De Roeper 2008). As such, the audience had limited power over the types of films they were viewing and the time in which they viewed them (Harris 2007). Through digital distribution, the structure has changed to allow for instant delivery of content to the audience. It has created the opportunity for a range of choice and developed new ‘revenue streams’ for filmmakers (Lobato 2010, p1). The release ‘windows’ of the traditional structure are ‘no longer fixed, linear and sequential’ as online platforms have allowed for a different chain of release that gives all filmmakers the ability to directly engage with their audience (Harris 2013 p35).
In juxtaposition to the traditional distribution landscape, online distribution has eliminated the role of the gatekeeper, allowing films to be directly released to their viewers. The gatekeepers are dissipating with the tectonic shift to online distribution (Lobato 2010). With emerging online technology such as Video On Demand (VOD) ‘audiences can be accessed directly’ and immediately (Harris 2007, p26). Essentially, VOD covers different platforms that enable distribution of film and television content such as ‘catch-up television services, ad-supported services including YouTube, subscription VOD services such as Quickflix or Foxtel Presto, and transactional (online rental or download-to-own) services such as iTunes’ (Screen Australia 2014, p3). These new online technologies are effective as viewers can watch the film content that meets their needs; when they want and where they want (Screen Australia 2014). Sampson and Mahoney’s The Mule primarily reflects the success of an Australian film’s release onto the digital platform. Before the film took to cinemas, it had a digital premiere and was available for pre-order online (Screen Australia 2015). This resulted in hype and exposure surrounding the film before it went to theatres.
It is through digitalised distribution that revenues can be earned as a result of directly connecting with the film’s intended audience. The viewer’s engagement with Australian films is becoming increasingly prevalent in ancillary markets (Harris, Dolgopolov & Stevens 2015). An integral example of a film that has used digital distribution and marketing as a means of engaging with its audience is Carlo Ledesma’s The Tunnel (2011). The Tunnel used self-distribution methods to create hype and word-of-mouth surrounding its release. Interestingly, the filmmakers allowed for piracy to occur, arranging connections with torrent sites so that the film could be shared across the digital platform (Harris 2013). Their intentions were to use piracy as a way to create ‘viral word of mouth’ that was free, along with social media and crowdfunding (Harris 2013 p.45). In essence, The Tunnel successfully gained revenue and developed an interest within their intended audience surrounding the film (Harris 2013). Thus this demonstrates that embracing low cost digital distribution methods may be the long-term solution to the current distribution crisis in Australia.
Furthermore, by transcending to digital distribution independent filmmakers have a new platform through which they can release their films, igniting the opportunity for a broader spectrum of content that reaches a wider range of audiences. Before the emergence of digital distribution, it was not achievable for independent filmmakers to easily exhibit their films and reach their target audience at a low cost. The traditional distribution structure meant that independent filmmakers were restricted to buying ‘into the system’ to get their films on screen (Harris 2007, p7). The emergence of the digital distribution platforms gives independent filmmakers the opportunity to exhibit their films without the expenditure and restrictions involved in the past (Screen Australia 2015). Independent filmmakers can exhibit their work, using self-distribution on user-generated websites such as YouTube to reach their intended audience (Harris 2013). Most importantly, the user-generated websites allow independent filmmakers to can gain revenues through ‘branding, product placement and advertising’ and can get their films seen by a larger audience (Harris 2013 p48).
In contrast to the traditional audience of film, the online audience is fragmented across different media platforms, making it possible for filmmakers to reach their intended niche market. As such, the traditional separation between the producers and the audience is broken and as a result ‘communities of interest’ are formed online (Screen Australia 2015 p.4). The traditional distribution of a film targets the mass audience and appeals to a broad range of viewers without having a focus on ‘consumer demand’ (Harris 2007, p9). The online audience is split across different channels, allowing filmmakers to seek out their niche market. In the past, the successful distribution and marketing of a film relied heavily on ‘hit-dominated’ and ‘blockbuster’ content (Harris 2007, p26). Conversely, it is through digital distribution that opportunities for all filmmakers to distribute their work have become more accessible. Filmmakers have the ability to ‘cut out the middle man and deal directly with their audiences’ (Lobato 2010 p2). Furthermore, they can easily cross borders, reaching international niche markets. Although it is unlikely that the independant films will be box office hits, we see that it is achievable for anyone to produce films, particularly lower-budget niche films, and release them to an audience (Screen Australia 2015).
Essentially, these changes have had an immense effect on the audience’s’ expectations and perceptions of their accessibility to film content. The digitalisation of distribution has caused a change in audiences’ behaviour towards films. There is now an expectation that films are ubiquitous and easily accessible online (Harris 2013). At the forefront of this is the viewer’s’ belief that film content should be everywhere; online, at the cinemas, on DVD and at festivals (Screen Australia 2015). Thus, there is a greater demand for content. As the audience disperses across different media platforms, new distribution methods need to be created in order to suit their needs. The method of distribution should be the core of the filmmakers decisions when producing a film (Screen Australia 2015). Traditional ‘windows’ of distribution are not applicable as viewers can access content globally online (Harris 2007, p27). The audience is growing in power through online platforms and as a result they are demanding a larger range of films to be at their disposal, they ‘no longer have to compromise’ (Harris 2007, p26-p27). In the digital era, viewers are active and will not stand by to wait for the distribution process to take place (Luckman and De Roeper 2008).
Piracy
Contrary to the positive effects of digital distribution on the Australian film industry, piracy has become a substantial issue with the digital release of films and has occurred as a result of the viewer’s active role online. When a film is delivered to the audience online it can be easily shared among the platforms (Screen Australia 2015). With the current digital demand for films, an ‘unwillingness to pay’ for content coincides with the viewer’s’ lack of patience (Harris 2007, p28). Despite The Tunnel taking full advantage of piracy and new distribution technologies as a means of marketing the film, piracy is becoming the cause of failure for many Australian films, ‘with 29 per cent of Australian adults admitting to being active pirates in 2014’ (Screen Australia 2015, p9). With distribution moving to the digital platform, piracy is significantly disrupting the successful production process and revenue systems. The use of VOD, subscription and pay-per-view has given viewers cheaper options and ease of access to watch films (Harris 2007). The industry is currently figuring out new strategies to prevent piracy through ‘litigation against copyright infringements, lobbying for stronger copyright legislation, and the development of ‘rights management technologies’ (Harris 2007, p32). Jean-Marc Vallee’s Dallas Buyer’s Club (2013) is an integral example of a film that has been affected by piracy. The film also reflects the new ways in which distributors and filmmakers are dealing with the illegal downloader’s of the film by prosecuting them.
Future Changes
In order for Australia to maintain a successful film industry, the future of distribution requires innovative and alternate models to reach its audience and gain revenues. Screen Australia has proposed new distribution strategies for the future which work in parallel to the digital platform and new technologies. It is evident that many filmmakers, producers and distributors are making progress in responding to new methods of distribution and the different online technologies (Screen Australia 2015). Cinema on Demand, event screenings, different release windows, elevated digital premieres, platform-exclusivity deals and direct-to-fan are Screen Australia’s proposed new strategies for distribution. Particularly, these platforms will help independent filmmakers bypass the major distributors. An example of a new digital Cinema on Demand platform is FanForce which allows viewers to put the films that they want to see into cinemas. Kiah Roache-Turner’s Australian film Wyrmwood (2014) used the website FanForce to get screenings in cinemas. They sold over the required amount of tickets on FanForce which as a result allowed them to screen over 10 times (Screen Australia 2015). Thus, this demonstrates how effective new technologies are in distribution as the audience is able to interact and request the content they want.
Ultimately, digital distribution is a trend within the Australian film industry that is challenging the existence and structure of the traditional distribution model. Emerging online technologies such as Video On Demand are transforming the distribution landscape, eliminating the gatekeepers and allowing for a broader range of content to be released to a wider audience. Evidently, there is a crisis with the traditional distribution model with the rise of digitalisation that is changing viewers’ behaviour. The Australian feature film industry is needing to constantly adapt in order to survive. As an industry, we need ‘to rethink distribution as the vital way in which we conceive and reach out to our audience’ (Harris 2013, p69) As the distribution landscape undergoes the dramatic shift to the digital platform, the industry requires new and innovative distribution strategies to reach the audience in the most successful way.
Word Count: 2,207
References:
Harris, LC, Dolgopolov, G & Stevens, K 2015, Studies in Australasian Cinema, vol.9, no.1, pp.3-6, Taylor and Francis, Routledge, London, UK
Harris, LC 2013, Not at a Cinema Near You: Australian’s Film Distribution Problem, Currency House, Platform Papers, Sydney.
Harris, R 2007, Film in the age of digital distribution: the challenge for Australian content, RMIT University, Melbourne, viewed 12 August 2015, RMIT University Library <http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/fullText;dn=776362361592520;res=IELLCC>
Lobato, R 2010, ‘The politics of digital distribution: exclusionary structures in online cinema’, Studies in Australasian Cinema, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 167-178, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, viewed 10 September 2015, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1752574>
Screen Australia, 2015, Issues in Feature Film Distribution, Screen Australia, viewed 20 August 2015, <https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/9598b9f7-321b-45f3-b5e8-7870166487fc/IssuesInFeatureFilmDistribution_2015-07-30.pdf>
Screen Australia, 2014, Online and on demand: Trends in Australian online video use, Screen Australia, viewed 20 August 2015,<https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/getmedia/d61a7c4b-3abf-444c-9367-aa8dc8b1b8f6/OnlineOnDemand_2014.pdf>
Luckman, S & De Roeper, J 2008, ‘Wagging the long tail: distribution and peripheral screen production industries’, HRISS and School of Communication, Cultural Science, University of South Australia, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1-10, viewed 25 August 2015, UniSA Archival Collections, <http://ura.unisa.edu.au/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=unisa40859>