Comparing a long-form narrative sports drama to a highly-anticipated documentary about one of the most beloved figures in music is definitely not an apples-to-apples exercise, but at least it gives occasion to wonder what the key to financial success for documentaries might actually be.  Until "Hunger Games," Lionsgate's highest grossing project was a documentary (Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11").  Disney (through it's distribution arm Buena Vista) has done quite well with its documentary projects over the years too, with four films in the top 20 of the best-grossing documentary list.

But Marley didn't have the wide release and marketing muscle Disney lets loose for its nature films, so why did it have such a great weekend?  I think it has something to do with efforts to secure strong, meaningful connections with the places where it screened--particularly outside of the NYC/LA/Chicago arthouse markets.  In Grand Rapids, Wealthy Theater showed the film on Friday.  In the week running up to the screening, the local connections started to come to light, and localized social media efforts made the film feel like an event.  This presents a win-win for the distributors and the local exhibitors, and engaged audiences win as well.  

1.   Mixed service bundles
2.   Paid locker services
3.   Purchased content lockers 
4.    “Limited offerings”
5.    Music bundles 

It is not exactly clear if all of these services are actually available in the market right now, but the intent of the parties is to be out in front of future royalty issues.  Once the agreement is made available it should be easier to match the new royalty categories to actual services, and one has to believe that the trade association members that participated in construction of the agreement had specific services in mind, whether they exist now or will emerge in the future.  The proposed agreement will cover 2013-2017.

Our artist clients are engaged in the constant search for new (and robust) revenue streams, and are working hard to live the dream of eating off of what their music generates financially.  To the vast majority of artists, it remains mostly that: a dream.  But it's a dream that is born out of passion and art, so somehow- for a while at least- it is pursued honestly and with hard work.  The same observations we have been making for years- the music business model is broken, no one knows what to do- are just boring observations now.  Statements of the obvious even?

So how do we move beyond stating the obvious and get in to working towards making music work for the people that make music?  One key way is to know how the money flows--and the FMC revenue project does that, but from the perspective of the artist rather than the balance sheet jumble of labels, publishers, etc.  It is likely to be a very helpful study.

And for the record, we were really happy to have helped out (in small, lawyerly ways) on some of the collaborations between Topspin and Air Traffic Control last year.  Forward thinking projects = fun.

Production tax incentive programs are definitely taking fire as we come to the close of 2010.  Nevertheless, the soft money that tax incentives bring to production budgets continue to help get projects that otherwise might languish in development limbo off the ground.  As many states and jurisdictions (including our home base, Michigan) debate the sustainability of production incentive programs, there are still a lot of options for producers seeking government help to get from limbo to lensing. 

One of the challenges that face producers seeking tax credit support is that the application and administrative processes for the programs vary widely.  It takes some concerted effort to evaluate not only the bottom line benefits of each jurisdiction's program, but all of the nuances of participating in those programs as well.  And then there are the true variables: the subjective criteria in each of the programs that can be impossible to predict.

In Michigan, projects have been denied tax credits because of concerns about the content of submitted scripts and because the Michigan Film Office determined that there were not sufficient economic development benefits to the state that would result from bringing the denied projects to the state.  Michigan is not alone.  This week we learned that Robert Rodriguez's most recent release, Machete, was denied incentive support in Texas because it portrayed Texas in a negative light.

There really is no escaping subjective criteria in the administration of the production incentive programs.  The key to successful utilization of incentive financing is working with professionals that have frequent interactions with the administrators of the programs in the jurisdictions that productions are considering.  While no one can predict an outcome when it comes to subjective criteria, it helps to know what has happened in the past and to have some insight into how decision makers approach each project as the applications come in. 

Set aside, for now at least, the long saga of how Peter Jackson ended up as the eventual (and logical!) helmsman for these films.  And even set aside the guilds' boycott of the project that was only recently called off.  What is really interesting to me here are the events that transpired to keep New Zealand as the location of these films.

The thumbnail of the story is that New Line and its parent, Warner Bros., threatened to move the production of the films as a result of fracas surrounding the labor issues.  Then, people rallied around the cause (check out the promotional trailer for the demonstrations), and protested in the streets when WB execs were in the country for meetings to convince the New Zealand government and the producers to keep the films in New Zealand.

Now, it's pretty clear that the studio was just doing what studios do: negotiating the best deal for the production of what promise to be huge films for them.  So, what can we take away from this?  A few things:

1.  Productions of major motion pictures are major economic events, and around the world, they inspire public and political action to attract and retain them.

2.  Studios are always going to work for the best deal on physical production to maximize returns on investment.

3.  Labor issues are a critically important factor in steering production work.

4.  Currency fluctuations and government incentives/subsidies are (still) critically important factors in steering production work.

As things settling down with the planning of these films, we can now look forward to them taking shape as Jackson and his team work to dazzle the world with their movie magic.

New Orleans is a music town, and in the years since Katrina, musicians have rallied around their brothers and sisters, musician and non-musician alike, to help with the recovery.  Air Traffic Control Education Fund, a national non-profit, has collaborated with the Future of Music Coalition to facilitate directed assistance to the people of New Orleans by musicians in the years since Katrina.

Their efforts have culminated in this project, Dear New Orleans - A Benefit Album, that was released last week.  Learn more about what artists have been doing to help in New Orleans by checking it out.  And get a great record while you're at it.  The work isn't done, but after five years, it helps to slow down and enjoy the music that helps tie New Orleans to the rest of America and the world.

Read about the deal HERE and HERE.

There are shades of re-invention of the film distribution models in this story, and it's pretty clear that the process is in full swing at this point.  The movement to faster arrival of films on streaming platforms has been predicted for a while, so this is likely another step along the road towards a theatrical/non-theatrical universe where the non-theatrical world is mostly just streaming.  Slumping DVD sales supports the idea, but just like in the music industry, it's really hard to say where things will be a year from now....