Film Distribution: Insight Report on A Late Quartet

A Late Quartet is a drama directed by Yaron Zilberman released in 2012.

The film was released through:

• Cinemas
• Sky Box Office
• Curzon’s VOD service
• Curzon Home Cinema
• FilmFlex services

The release date was on April 5, 2013. It was released more conventionally on DVD and on other VOD services on July 29, 16 weeks after opening.

There was then a ‘premium window’ of simultaneous release this was on:

• Theatre
• Selected VOD platforms

This later contrasted with standard windows on:

•  DVD
• Other VOD services
• Television

Facts and Figures

Specifically, the money was used for:

• Media spend (£148,000)
• The press campaign (£30,000)
• Online marketing (£10,000)
• Promotion through VOD channels (£15,000)
• A £100,000 support by the BFI Distribution fund.

The total distribution and marketing budget was £200,000. The media spend was £148,000, the traditional press campaign was aimed at and more successful with the older generation.

A Late Quartet took £520,375 at the UK box office, well ahead of its stated £400,000 target, although VOD revenues of £25,000 were half of the £50,000 forecast.

The film focused on independent venues without targeting multiplexes, and the distributor had to accept that there would be a number of cinemas refusing to show the film given its release strategy.There are reasons, however, to believe that a wider conventional release might have generated higher revenues, given the relative success of the theatrical release and the under-performance of new media platforms, compared to forecasts.

A big issue in planning day–and–date launches, and indeed in drawing conclusions from them, is the lack of availability and transparency of new media data.

Planning and Execution

It was released in the US (by Entertainment One), two months before its UK opening (on April 5), grossing $1.56m (£1m) on a fairly limited release.

A facebook page was set up and gained 10,500 likes, the older demographic was drawn in through the established cast and music.Unlike many previous day–and–date experiments, A Late Quartet was a film with a target audience firmly in the mainstream of independent cinema-going culture.

Distribution Strategy

A Late Quartet was released day–and–date through:

• Theatrical
• Sky Movies Box Office
• Curzon Home Cinema
• FilmFlex services, with Virgin and Film4

Marketing Strategy

• The media spend was £148,000, of which £70,000 was allocated to outdoor sites (rail and underground) and £38,000 on print advertising.
• Because of the target audience, the social media campaign was less central than for many releases aimed at younger demographics but the UK Facebook site generated 549 Likes. The US online marketing was still available, including a separate Facebook page and YouTube trailers (155,000 views for the HD release), which may have also played a part in raising awareness.
• One overall objective was to see if a new profitable window could be established, provisionally called by some ‘Premium VOD’. The idea is that audiences will be more responsive to, and hopefully pay more, for an on–demand screening of a film simultaneous with its theatrical release, in contrast with later VOD releases in conventional windows, generally around four months after a cinema debut.It was decided, however, to keep to the later conventional window for the DVD release for a variety of reasons, notably competition from similar titles in the marketplace, and the availability of supermarkets to stock the title.
• The loss of any multiplex support, due to day–and–date release, was considered less of an issue, given that it was Easter when the big chains were focused on family– oriented blockbusters, including The Croods, GI Joe and Jack The Giant Slayer.The non–theatrical platforms were expected to generate 10,000 buys in total, with the distributor taking half of the estimated £100,000 in revenues.

 

Marketing Strategy

The media spend was £148,000, of which £70,000 was allocated to outdoor sites (rail and underground) and £38,000 on print advertising.

 

The media campaign  promoted availability on all platforms and the on– demand services. Which pushed the film strongly to be available on the same day as theatrical release.

Sky Box Office ran a series of advertisements and the multi–platform availability which was part of the print and poster campaign.

Because of the target audience, the film was aimed at a younger demographic. Facebook pages were used, youtube and 155,000 views on HD.

VOD releases in conventional windows were roughly 4 months after cinema debut. (premium VOD window) premium window released on 5th April. A later DVD release was agreed on because of competition of similar smaller titles and supermarkets recognising the title.

 

Premium–priced VOD at (in this case) £10, and normal VOD pricing at the 16–week mark.

Which created a gap between to the two different marketing strategies.

Expectations

Theatrical box office- High optimism of £400,000.By June 20, the box–office figure had reached £520,375, significantly higher than the original ‘high’ estimate of £400,000.

If a film is released in northern America, as a rule of thumb, the UK tends to take 10% of the Northern American box office.£2 million, £400,000 would seem a high expectation.The loss of any multiplex support, due to day–and–date release, was considered not a big isse, because it was Easter when the big chains were focused on family– oriented blockbusters, including The Croods, GI Joe and Jack The Giant Slayer.

Non-theatrical revenues of £100,000 expected. The strong theatrical support as opposed to home viewing was because of the audience demographic.

The other platforms delivered around £25,000, half of the expected £50,000 revenues for Curzon. Also DVD sales reached 6,435 (474 on Blu– ray)

 

The emphasis on the ‘premium’ window of simultaneous theatrical and VOD release meant that DVD sales were considered an unknown quantity by the distributor.

Word of mouth marketing, print advertising had the most effect on the theatrical audience.

Conclusions

 

• The release of A Late Quartet in cinemas was heavily concentrated (67.1%) on London

• The £520,375 taken theatrically is more than half of the US takings, well over the 10% usually expected of such releases.

• Audience was mostly concentrated in cinem viewings, watching at home was a second option. There was an element of Boycott issues; where some cinemas refued to show the film.

Click to access bfi-insight-report-a-late-quartet-2013-10.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Distribution Case Study; A Field In England

For two lessons we have been studying how A Field In England was distributed, the information taken from an insight report from the British Film Institute.

The release date for this film was on the 5th July 2013 and was directed by Ben Wheatley. The film fundamentally was aimed to be released across all platforms simultaneously. A method which hadn’t been done before. It was released through a number of windows such as on 17 independent cinema screens, DVD, VOD ( video on demand) and free terrestrial broadcast on Film4. The total budget for this film production was £316,879. This is a relatively tight budget as far as film making goes.It’s P&A spend supported £56,701 from the BFI. This release plan was supported by Channel 4, Film 4, Picturehouse (the exhibitor and distributor cinemas, the film makers and cast.

Overview

When the film was released it took in £21,399 in theatrical revenues, 77% of the cinema audience said they knew it would be available on television. This meant people were clearly willing to pay for the cinema experience. The audience was between 18-25 years and frequent cinemagoers in the 25-35+bracket, whom may have been previously aware of Wheatley’s work. Television reached the film 918,000 viewers which is 1.8% of the populationThe entire cast and Wheatley used an innovative marketing plan which intended to to build interest across all platforms. This mobilised their media fan base and a masterclass website along with twitter with 12,000 followers. Crucially this release model was integrated into the development part.

Contributing parties were convinced this unconventional and daring film had little chance of fulfilling its potentiality. The simultaneous release strategy looked promising however. The social media-dominated marketing campaign was aimed at as being the potential target audience. It would seem A Field In England was tailored for a specific group of people who were a) aware of Wheatley’s work and b) aimed at the same demographic group as for example Shaun Of The Dead.

One key obstacle left in the day-and-date strategy i the form of cinema boycott. Where larger cinema companies such as Cineworld, Vue, Odeon were not convinced this release plan was suitable and so it was shown on 17 smaller screens. This meant it would have less of an impact because it was shown on less screens so it wouldn’t matter as much if the cinema option wasn’t as effective.

Planning and execution

The release of A Field In England managed to mobilise a coalition of parties willing to put in a huge amount of effort to produce a clear strategy. On the 5th July 2013 it was released on:

• VOD (iTunes etc)
• Cinemas
• Free TV
• Blu-Ray/DVD

Anna Higgs who is a commissioning Executive at Film4.0 was a motivated champion in excelling the simultaneous cross-media release from early stages.Both channel 4 and Film4  were ginormous contributors to marketing a large audience due to their strengths in the UK already being established.

Picturehouse being both exhibitor and distributor helped devise, refine and execute the strategy. It had local loyalty towards it’s smaller cinemas in the UK. One main aim of all the parties in all its forms was to create one single momentum around the film to make the opening weekend a real event.

The film had to comply to regulations because it was funded by channel 4. There were rules how this film could be advertised due to Film4’s promotional trailers pushing viewers towards their own television screening, along with other platforms.

Cannibalisation was another threat, such as Apple experienced. With their iPhones and iPods. A system of ‘one pot’ derail where everyone shared the risks and the rewards across all of the exploitation areas.

Marketing Plan

• Heavy promotion of the film’s innovative
• Simultaneous multimedia release of a film-questions of quality, the distributors marketed it as a virtue to overcome these questions, it was said to be a “high quality unconventional film”
• twitter
• facebook
• apps
• website with filmmaking masterclass

Results

• All aspects of results were above expectations. Weekend of release wasn’t helpful as Andy Murray was set to win Wimbledon.
• Opening weekend picked up 2,213 admissions with a screening average of £1,259 from 17 sites. Special screenings on Friday generated £10,783 from 14 screens. Channel 4 research found 367,000 viewers tuned in to the free television screening.
• Worth noting that DVDs are generally sold on mondays while film releases on a friday. For logistical reasons, they can’t control what stores do, they do not carry stocks until the monday. Given that it was released on a friday rather than a monday so it’s hard to compare it to other films.
• Combined HMV, Amazon and DVD sales reached 1,462
• It turns out the cinemas brought in a male orientated audience.
• Blu-Ray sales outsold DVD ones Word of mouth interpretation might consider that they quality of cinematography might have supported the higher definition format.

Conclusions

Key question is whether is of course, whether this release resulted in more people buying or watching the film.

• Budget-£316,879
• Film4 investment £316,879
• Theatrical £51,409
• DVD sales 7,700
• TV 367,000

The film was in no set genre and was explained as ‘different’ or ‘original’. The Field In England distribution experimented a demonstration how day-and-date multimedia launched can be made to work. This release was made to work by a small passionate team who

Cancer Research nominations on facebook

Since the ‘neck nomination’ phase that happened on facebook about a month ago it has since been re-used, but for this time something that can make a difference.

Instead of people filming themsleves drinking whatever they can find. Girls all over the world are nominating their friends to take a picture of themselves without make up. To go a step further, they must actually donate money to cancer research. Even if you don’t donate you must take the picture and nominate a couple of your friends to make more people aware.

Some people just think it is an easy way for people to just abuse the system and that it doesn’t contribute anything to cancer research. Well as far as I am concerned they need to stop being so opinionated, no matter what, cancer research has made such a good profit from this craze at the minute, even people not donating gets the word around. So no-one can factually state it is has made no difference. I think using something like facebook for a use like this helps any charity and faith in humanity has been restored a little.

Kevin Smith and Red State (2011)

Kevin Smith from New Jersey, USA is a director who started his career off with a low budget film, Clerks in 1994. He aims to distribute his films through his podcasts that are released weekly on SModcast internet radio.

One of his main accomplishments is Red State. Released in 2011, it is a horror set in America with a bunch of teenagers. They get an invitation for sex over the internet, however, encounter more than they bargain for with fundamentalists who have a more sinister agenda. In order to distribute this film, Smith wanted to go against the idea of digital democratisation, something that Hollywood studios tend to stick to. To successfully distribute his film, Smith took it to the Sundance Festival to express his tour to promote it.

This ‘Red-State’ tour was proposed to be shown in smaller, more intimate cinemas or venues around America. This all to subvert the traditional model of advertising a film. When at the Sundance Festival, Smith wasn’t trying to sell his film to producers, he was simply trying to sell it to people to go and watch, therefore distributing it himself. He was simply attempting to not use distribting methods larger film companies use, such as trailer teasers, cinema viewing etc. He used Lionsgate as an example in his speech(a relatively large film company) that it takes £20 million to make and distribute their films. Perhaps even more towards the £50-100 million for larger film companies such as Paramount to do the same, alongside printing and advertising. Smith firmly felt it was better to distribute his film mainly through the tour to make profit but also to allow the audience to experience it. He had built himself a trustworthy fan base who were dedicated to support this up and coming film.

This is his speech from The Sundance Festival in 2011:

Distributing A Field In England

In the past two media lessons we have been researching on how the new film, A Field In England, directed by Ben Wheatley is distributed to it’s audience. This is in the hope that they can break the Hollywood model of distribution by becoming the first film to simultaneously launch it in the UK across all platforms. Therefore making it unlike the usual ‘tent-pole’ films Hollywood studios distribute such as Disney, Universal, Warner Bros or Paramount. Their methods are often to use staggered release window. Such as a film like Harry Potter is shown at the cinema, then available for home sharing such as on a DVD, then within time it is available to stream of Netflix for example. This allows a slower process of distribution however, a film as big as Harry Potter would never be released on the same day as Avatar for example. Due to the fact it would be too much competition and the films in themselves force other businesses out. Therefore, acting as a ‘tent-pole’ franchise. A Field In England is to use these methods but simultaneously, making it different from Hollywood studios.

One way they are aiming to distribute the film is through cinema showings. Many enjoy the cinema experience and so may go to see it by this method. Possibly because of the atmosphere of being at the cinema. However; also people may go to the cinema to view a film if it supposed to be doe spectacular movie. Fundamentally the cinema adds value of vision and better sound, such as 3D or iMax.

Another way A Field In England is to be distributed is through VOD, which allows it to be bought off of Itunes for example, or it is available on Sky. This is a convenient way for A Field In England to be seen as it can be done from the home and it can be rented. Allowing the instant showing of the film.

A Field In England would also be distributed in retail. This means you can fundamentally watch the film as many times as you wish and you are in control of the experience. Unlike being at the cinema. Furthermore, special features are available such as pausing and you can decide when you watch the film. Making this option also favourable.

The next way A Field In England can be distributed is through broadcast TV. Which is completely free and you have the option of recording it. However, adverts and the quality may ruin the quality of the film and censorship may contribute to these problems. However, all of the above methods are to happen simultaneously; they also managed to get A Field In England trending on Twitter!

Consequently, this is different to the Hollywood industry because bigger studios rely on their ‘tent-pole- franchises and their successful distribution methods to fetch them the money. Through using the different method of staggered release windows. They tend to run in the sequence of cinema viewing, home sale date, on demand (rental) and then available on television.

A more diverse release strategy-digital democratisation of film making is becoming more possible. This means digital technologies will disrupt the hegemony of the media industries, which can enable the public to produce and then distribute their own content and have greater freedom to that content.

POP UP CINEMA

This alternative solution of going to a multiplex viewing is a British summertime solution. The idea of independent exhibitors screening their movies both new and old in the most unlikeliest of venues. Fundamentally this adds to the value to distribution. For example Cineroleum takes place at a disused petrol station in East London. A lot of these quirky ideas elabrate feelings of traditional cinema-going rather than the modern multiplexes. It is perhaps a sense of individuality and independent flare. Alot of these companies tend to screen films that might otherwise find it hard to get distribution because they are too specialist or low budget.

The Book Thief (Brian Percival,2014)

After reading this international best selling book and loving it. I couldn’t wait to see the film!
The film is based during the Second World War of a young girl called Liesel whom is sent away to the country. She steals books to read them to a Jewish refugee her adoptive family are hiding in their basement.

Fundamentally, this film was a truly inspiring story highlighting the touching and terrifying traumas of the war. As I am interested in history this film grasped my attention right from the start. It begins with an omniscient narrator talking about life and death. And then at the end of the film it is revealed or hinted at who the speaker is. Which I found a good technique because the audience automatically link the start and ending together making the film have a sense of completeness.

It was a rollercoaster of emotions whilst watching The Book Thief. There were elements of comedy, romance and atrocities committed making the film suddenly very dark. However, they all balanced each other and each scene being complimented by another. The characters never gave anything away too much which kept subliminal plots ambiguous. Altogether making the film superbly fascinating.

Non-Stop (Jaume Collet-Serra,2014)

This is a new film out with Liam Neeson in playing an air marshal who is on a transatlantic flight to England. He receives a number of unknown text messages putting his passengers in great danger. The person sending the texts wants 150 million dollars put into an off-shore account. Every 20 minutes that passes and there is no money transferred the person kills someone.

In all fairness I went to the cinema to see The Wolf Of Wall Street. However, after a series of problems we decided to go see this film. It looked like the next best one being shown. It certainly didn’t let itself down. I thought that the whole construction of the film was genius. Because it wasn’t until about half an hour into the film that the audience realised that he was actually an air marshal. Making his character extremely ambiguous. Which foreshadowed the entire ambiguity of the film because no-one knows who this killer is. Furthermore, the entire film was based on the aeroplane apart for the beginning and end. Which as the audience you would be apprehensive about, but it worked so well due to the fascinating action and storyline taking place.

When the air marshal receives the text, there are a number of people on board the flight that he thinks it may be, but it keeps the audience in suspense. I won’t give to much away about the characters on board as I wouldn’t want to ruin it! The killer is totally anonymous and it leaves you questioning everybody just like the air marshal. But I 100% recommend seeing this film whilst it is out in cinemas. On the big screen it something superb to watch because of the graphics used.