Distribution

Sean Nicholas This honestly feels less like a traditional platform announcement and more like the early manifesto of a creative ecosystem, which is probably why it stands out. The language creates a sense of ambition and atmosphere rather than simply listing features.

What I find most interesting is the attempt to position AI not as a replacement for creativity, but as an interactive layer surrounding discovery, experience, and connection. That distinction matters because a lot of people are still wary of AI in creative spaces, whereas your framing makes it feel more collaborative and exploratory.

I also think phrases like:

“a living digital experience,”

“where sound meets intelligence,”

and

“where ideas don’t just sit still they respond”

do a strong job communicating mood and direction rather than just technical functionality.

And honestly, emphasizing that the platform is still evolving actually helps the message feel more authentic because it reads like an invitation into a growing movement rather than a finished corporate product launch.

The challenge moving forward will probably be translating this strong conceptual identity into very tangible creator experiences people can immediately understand and emotionally connect with once they enter the ecosystem. But as a vision statement, it definitely creates curiosity.

The ambition is clear, but phrases like "where sound meets intelligence" are too abstract to tell a creator what they'd actually do on the platform or why they'd choose it over existing tools. What is the one core daily problem this ecosystem solves for a writer or musician?

Fair enough. This is where I would say let me show you. Stay tuned! I am launching shortly...

Good then I will keep an eye out.

Did a little figuring (no guarantee of accuracy, just asked ai on the net- and double check my math.).... a video on youtube earns about $6 per 1000 views (after it reaches the requirements). An ad on youtube (if you're placing one) cost about $.10-.30 per view or about $100 - $300 per 1000 views. I'd think it's similar across all avod for the average indie production. I read, it costs about $10,000/month to host an avod platform. If someone (let's say Stage32 for example, or all the members of stage 32 banded together) hosted an avod platform for indies and let's say 10% of the members actually watched (ie about 100,000). Ad revenues would be about $10,000 - $30,000 for an avod platform for indies. Breakeven. So, not as rich as it might seem for a smaller operation, but if you had a accumulated 1 - 3 million views over all the videos. You might be able to distribute more than $6 to your filmmakers for 1000 views. Give 'em maybe $12. =-)

From my perspective, we sometimes overlook the purely commercial side that drives this industry. My experience has taught me that distribution is not a 'subsequent phase' of production, but rather the primary driver. We never start writing any project without first conducting a thorough analysis of what broadcasters require and testing the concept as a commercial product.

A strong distributor is a primary strategic ally. The failure of many companies—despite the high quality of their work—is often due to having a weak ally or the inability to reach channel executives in a timely manner. I believe that success in this industry requires us to treat a 'work of art' as a 'commercial product' from the very moment we start thinking about the treatment

Hello!, Talk about Distribution success. I have not yet experienced any success in the Distribution. I have not had a chance to fund my own first project due to unavoidable circumstances. But I am not giving up. The book is out there. My Story has been completed. I am a self supporting Producer waiting for the perfect opportunity to get funded otherwise, Then What Now? Waiting period. I am frozen just like many others. I was able to complete the story with the support of only one creative partner and was able to successfully captured audience, on my social media. As of now, I continue to create for two clients. For three years I am able to build huge amount of equity that I am tempted to use for my own project but at the same time I am trying to be debt free so I can invest on my own project in the near future. From Producing my own film to Distribution.

I have been a Stage32 member since 2020. My creative partner who helped from the ground level to where I am now has been a member for much longer. My dream of having a "A" Director and Line Production for my powerful story may not happen but getting it done is not a far fetch reality. Miracle happens. Having my story on a Theater is very possible because I met new acquaintances in the Entertainment industry, particularly a female producer of her own local show. My Creative partner and I may someday consider my powerful story to be on the Musical Broadway show in Las Vegas.

Hey Sean Patrick Burke congrats on your projects. Well for me I had been waiting for a couple of years to do a feature film. Nothing happened, so a friend said "what if we just shot a feature ourselves". That's what we did, went at it in all the wrong ways, invested our own time and a tiny bit of money and shot a feature. It's just in the end stages of post right now. I never really thought about distribution since I approached the project in stages and figured that this was a later stage. But I'm happy that I've had some talks and interest from people about possible distribution and I'm excited to see where everything goes.

The thing with our film is, no known actors, a unknown director (me) and unknown writers (also me), that kind of limits it's scope I think.

One thing I've learned is that distribution isn't just about where a film ends up—it's also about how it is introduced to an audience.

I've spoken with filmmakers who spent years making a film, secured a release, and still felt like the film never really had its moment. That's part of why I'm building XineRent. We're experimenting with ticketed online premieres and live filmmaker Q&As to help independent films create an actual event around their release.

We're still early, but our first premieres reached audiences across multiple countries with full attendance. I'm curious whether others have seen audience engagement improve when a release feels like an event rather than just another upload.

Renato Pires Thanks for sharing, Renato! Just sent a follow. Looking forward to connecting with fellow creatives and industry professionals.

Abhijeet Aade I sure hope so, that's the vision!

Michael Howard Really appreciate you sharing your vision here, Michael.

I honestly think a lot of independent filmmakers are still trying to understand what the future “middle ground” of distribution looks like, especially between completely open platforms and traditional gatekept systems. That’s why conversations like this matter.

What stands out to me is that you’re not only talking about distribution technology, but also about building trust, curation, and community around independent films. That combination could become incredibly valuable as audiences continue looking for more intentional viewing experiences instead of endless algorithm-driven scrolling.

And honestly, giving emerging filmmakers visibility while helping them understand audience-building and platform strategy may end up being just as important as the distribution itself. Looking forward to seeing how your vision continues evolving.

Michael Howard How do you typically think about monetization on the channel? Are you mostly subscription-based, ad-supported, or a mix, and how has that evolved since you launched? What kind of revenue share or payout structure do you offer filmmakers, and are there any minimum thresholds before they get paid? For most filmmakers, how and when they are paid (frequency, thresholds, revenue share, advances vs. pure revenue share, recoupment terms) can make a difference and determine who leans more toward the traditional distribution route

I offer the same transaction-video-on-demand (TVOD) monetization that Roku's platform has built in. It's tier-based, such as $0.99, $1.99, $3.99 per transaction and I split the revenue 50% with the filmmaker. I payout when Roku pays out which is monthly.

Michael Howard That's brutal!

Yes, of course - I just want to stick up for entertainment only creative projects as just as or more valuable than any other type.

Robert D. Carver and Darrell Pennington, I think both points can live together. For indie projects, the useful marketing question is whether the campaign gives the audience one clear behavior to repeat. If the project is pure entertainment, that behavior might be a laugh, a shareable bit, or a memorable image. If it carries deeper social stakes, the same rule still applies: the public-facing idea has to come organically from the story so distribution can see who will talk about it first.

Well put!

Ashley Renée Smith The most creative film or series marketing is often the kind that turns promotion into an eventlike lived experience because it gives audiences a reason to participate, not just observe. When a campaign feels interactive, surprising, or slightly hard to miss, it creates curiosity, sparks conversation, and makes the title feel like a cultural moment rather than another piece of content. That kind of marketing also works better because people are more likely to remember and share something they experienced or decoded themselves than something they simply saw in a trailer.

These are great examples of how to think outside the box. I missed the Smile videos but wow, now I want to see that movie! (so it worked)

One thing we noticed immediately at our premiere was that audiences stayed afterward talking to strangers instead of rushing out. That communal energy feels valuable in today’s theatrical landscape.

Perhaps at some point, this will allow more new writers some opportunities. A boy can dream....

Amanda Toney They may be reducing the financial risk of film production while reallocating more resources toward TV development. Even with lower film output, they still need a steady stream of content overall. This becomes even more important as media consolidation continues, with Paramount set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery pending regulatory approval

I’d also love to see theaters eventually lean into replica environments of the films they’re promoting. Experiencing the world of the movie before you even sit down would be incredible and would make the premium experience feel truly immersive.

Dwayne Williams 2 Well consider a $50 ticket per person plus the upcharged popcorn (so, ~$120 night out not considering dinner), to fight traffic, parking, sit in a movie theater that probably hasn't been cleaned properly with people who don't care if their noise bothers you, all to watch something that you will see within your already-paid subscription price or even free with ads on streaming in a month. The prices are reaching to live-performance costs, where there are real people on stage. The up-charged cinema as prestige experience experiment was attempted by several niche chains in the early 2000s, and failed.

So while I see the MPA studios and theater chains positioning to do this, I don't see it as working for anything but something like Dune, and then only for the superfans who want to be there opening night. So far as theaters in merchandising, or creating replica environments, they are essentially forbidden from either of those due to the very complex IP licensing issues. The only ones to do that are theme park places where Disney, for example, has a side store on the theater it owns. The one exception is themed cups and popcorn containers which are underwritten by the marketing budgets of the movies. It's good to remember this is a studio decision, not a theater decision. Theater owners aren't even in the film industry in my books. They are short term landlords and make their money renting space out in hourly blocks, or daily/weekly blocks if required by their clean screen or block-booking contract.

Geoff Hall I think that’s a very fair concern, Geoff. Sustaining audience urgency repeatedly is probably the biggest challenge with event-based digital premieres. If everything becomes an “event,” eventually nothing feels special anymore.

What makes the idea interesting to me isn’t replacing traditional viewing entirely, but possibly creating selective experiences where the timing itself adds emotional value similar to premieres, live screenings, season finales, festival debuts, or communal television moments people used to gather around.

I also think the sustainability may depend heavily on curation and filmmaker-audience connection. If the project itself already has anticipation, discussion, or niche community interest around it, the event structure might amplify engagement rather than artificially trying to manufacture it.

Ok, this is certainly news! Thanks Shadow Dragu-Mihai !

Surprised this has not been offered for "The Odyssey." Yet.

Muhammad Muhammad I honestly think there’s real potential in this direction, especially because a lot of the theatrical experience isn’t just about the screen itself it’s about anticipation, intentional viewing, and the feeling that something is happening now rather than existing endlessly in a content library.

What’s interesting about timed digital events is that they reintroduce urgency and shared attention without requiring physical theaters. That psychological difference matters more than people sometimes realize.

And for indie films especially, event-based releases could help create identity and conversation around projects that might otherwise disappear into algorithm-driven streaming catalogs after a few days.

I also think audience behavior changes when viewers know they’re participating in a limited experience rather than casually browsing. People become more present and invested.

Curious whether you noticed differences in engagement or discussion between viewers who joined live versus those who watched later on-demand, if you tested both models.

If you need a film to test this again I would love to assist! I have a film in post right now to be set to premiere in about a month and a half 2 months!

Abhijeet Aade Yeah, I’ve noticed something similar in the small test I ran.

The live viewers felt very different — more attention, more real-time reactions, and they actually stayed more engaged through the middle of the film. The people who came later treated it more like a normal video, like you said.

That difference is actually what made me keep exploring this idea more seriously, because it seems less about the tech and more about how attention is structured around the release.

Still early on my side, but that pattern has been consistent enough to make me want to test it properly with filmmakers instead of just theorizing.

River Evatt That would actually be perfect timing.

I’d be really interested in testing this with you.

What’s the film about (genre + rough runtime), and who’s the target audience? I’ve found those details really help shape how the premiere performs.

We can then map out a simple test premiere closer to your release window.

Muhammad Muhammad That’s honestly fascinating, because it suggests the “event psychology” may be just as important as the film itself in shaping audience behavior.

When people know something is happening live and collectively, they seem to approach it with a different mindset more intentional attention, less passive consumption, and more emotional participation. It almost recreates part of the social contract of cinema, even in a digital environment.

What’s especially interesting is your point about the middle of the film. That’s usually where attention drops hardest on streaming platforms, so if live structure is improving retention there, that could become extremely valuable for indie filmmakers trying to build audience connection rather than just chase clicks.

And honestly, I think you’re right that this may be more about behavioral design than technology itself. The industry has focused so much on unlimited access and convenience that it may have accidentally weakened anticipation and communal engagement along the way.

Definitely feels like an area worth exploring further, especially for independent films that benefit from conversation, urgency, and shared experience rather than algorithmic discovery alone.

Pat this is the part most writers will not see coming. Library verticalization turns finished work into raw material for an AI repackaging pipeline. Most older distribution deals do not contemplate algorithmic reshaping into short vertical cuts. The reuse rights language is set for broadcast and streaming. The pay structure was written for a use case that no longer exists. Are any of these RoseBerry deals retroactive on existing library content where the original creators have a vote?

Pat Alexander Exactly and I think that’s the part people often ignore when discussing AI in entertainment: audiences haven’t actually stopped responding to quality.

When something feels genuinely original, emotionally honest, or artistically ambitious, people still show up for it in massive numbers. We’ve seen that repeatedly. The issue is that originality takes risk, patience, taste, and real creative effort and those are much harder to scale than fast, algorithm-friendly content.

What worries me isn’t AI itself as a tool. It’s the possibility of industries becoming increasingly comfortable optimizing for speed, familiarity, and passive consumption instead of meaningful storytelling.

Because eventually you don’t just train algorithms you train audiences too.

And once everything becomes engineered around instant stimulation and lowest-effort engagement, it becomes harder for slower, stranger, more emotionally challenging work to survive in mainstream spaces.

But ironically, that may also make truly human storytelling even more valuable and noticeable when it appears.

Eric Charran that's EXACTLY the issue - most contracts have no stipulation for clipping/library verticalization. i mean 10 years ago, there was no risk of a single frame from a show becoming a meme. Now we see dozens every day. Is anyone compensated? Nope. It's just positive publicity/PR/marketing! Like everything else, we'll be 10 years behind the curve - and the curve is starting right now. Artists aren't protected. No one is protected. And when it's not in the contract, it's always open to interpretation by the law (aka a panel of judges who can be bought and sold). Creators have no say - unless they had smart lawyers who could see the future or at least plan for contingencies, at the time of contract signing. Not a great trend emerging tbh

Pat the part that scares me is the AI workflow does not just cut. It learns. A studio piping a library through this pipeline ends up with a model that understands those shows structurally. The output cuts are the visible thing. The underlying model is the invisible asset nobody named in the original deal. Writers can fight for a clipping clause in new contracts starting now. The retroactive piece is harder and it needs collective action not individual negotiation.

Pat Alexander I think that’s exactly the tension a lot of people are feeling right now.

Audiences haven’t stopped responding to great storytelling if anything, the success of films and shows that genuinely connect proves people are still hungry for work with vision, craft, and emotional depth. But creating something truly memorable takes time, risk, and patience, which is much harder than optimizing purely for speed and volume.

And honestly, I think people can sense the difference. Even when audiences can’t articulate it directly, there’s usually a feeling when something was made with genuine perspective versus assembled for efficiency.

What worries me most isn’t necessarily AI itself, but the possibility of industries lowering their creative standards because fast, disposable content becomes “good enough.” That’s where things become culturally flattening over time.

At the same time, I also think this could make distinctive human voices stand out even more strongly in the long run.