So for the better part of the new year, we (specifically Charles) have been working on rolling out our own affiliate program.

Don't know what an affiliate program is? Well, it works like this: You have a website or blog and want to put a Caachi film advertisement on your site to earn cash. You copy some html code that we provide and paste it onto your webiste. Users who click on the ad then are sent to Caachi and can purchase a download. Each time a user clicks through and purchases a download, you get 20% of the sales revenue (i.e., 20% of the download fee).

We're offering the ads in thumbnail, film trailer or text versions. Its free to join. We pay our affiliates each month, just like filmmakers. To learn more, check out our affiliate program.

If you're a believer that independent film needs more exposure and deserves to be seen, tell your friends who have a website or blog about our affiliate program (come on, who doesn't have a blog these days?).

Filmmakers, we'd love to hear your thoughts on the affiliate program and what changes you'd like to see in it.

Last night Charles and I attended a BAWIFT (Bay Area Women in Film & Television) panel. I was on the panel, along with Tiffany Shlain (of "The Tribe", "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and the "Webby Awards" fame), and representatives from Atom Films and Jaman. It lasted about two hours but based on the engaged Q&A, it could have lasted another two. Some of discussion points I recall that may or may not be noteworthy (depending how Internet saavy you are as a filmmaker):

• some indie filmmakers are not that familiar with the opportunities of online distribution and the Internet appears daunting to them (which tells me that Caachi has to do a better job of making it easy to understand)
• continually aggregating emails as your personal fan base to use for the lifetime of your filmmaking career should be done by every filmmaker
• filmmakers should start their marketing campaigns with friends and family and have those people contact their friends to shill films (and don't forget to use those aggregated emails)
• streaming sites that specialize in user generated content (e.g., YouTube) is very different from distributing independent films for video downloading (that would be us). One is basically for showing short, grainy clips for the MTV crowd and the other is for professional filmmakers.
  
• both the filmmaker and the online distributor should be marketing your film to niche audiences that would have a likely interest in your film
• You don't need to stagger your film release unless there's a compelling reason (e.g., your TV deal prohibits you from distributing online until after the TV airing). The traditional window release process is meant for studio films to generate revenue for all the "middlemen" involved in the distribution process; indie films are a very different animal and the goal should be to create as much buzz/sales as possible.
  
• the future for indie filmmakers will be online and the opportunities to self-distribute is a tectonic shift from the days of being at the mercy of a traditional distributor. With these new opportunities, the filmmaker's role will morph where marketing and distribution will be just as important as making the film.
• some Internet distributors do not openly share their revenue split with filmmakers. This seems to be counter-productive since online distributors are supposed to be a mechanism to provide filmmakers improved terms and transparency compared to the old world of traditional distributors.
  

The notion of distributing indie films through the theatrical release model has been broken from the get-go.

Film distribution has focused on theatrical releases because it allows distributors to control which films are released to the public on a nationwide basis.  Distributors have negotiated complex agreements with the cadre of theater owners to control what gets seen. Add to this mix the monumental costs of distributing a film (the average studio film in 2005 was $125 million for negatives and marketing). It's little wonder that indie filmmakers can't participate in the distribution game.

In a nutshell, indie filmmakers have little leverage and the game is fixed.

Distribution based on theatrical release is so costly that few indie filmmakers have the funds to do a national marketing campaign. Also, most indie films are meant for niche, targeted markets which makes it virtually impossible to recoup the expenses for doing a large marketing campaign that a theatrical release requires. Add insult to injury, even if a indie film is distributed theatrically, the filmmakers gets horrible terms, often relinquishing rights and control over the film that he or she risked financial (and emotional) well-being. Most do not see any of the shared "net" profits because expenses are first deducted. In some cases, I think I've heard that filmmakers had to give up their first-borns.

It's almost as if indie films were never meant to be seen in the theatrical distribution universe.

Well, with Internet distribution, that universe has changed - dramatically. In the new world of film distribution, filmmakers DO control their film distribution and they are the ones who reap the fruits of their labor. Isn't that how it should have been from the beginning? If so, I'd like to think Caachi is helping to right the ship. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see my last post.

Should filmmakers wait before putting their films online at Caachi?

We often hear from filmmakers that before putting their films online they want to wait until the Wild Wild West that is film downloading on the Internet gets settled. That makes sense for many online video downloading sites that either lock filmmakers into a multi-year distribution agreement, or, worse yet, an exclusive distribution agreement. These sites are doing nothing more than regurgitating the same lousy terms that traditional distributors have for years been forcing upon filmmakers. Filmmakers should be protective of their films and be wary of losing control of them. So sit on the sidelines and play the waiting game because its too risky to sign onto a long term contract or an exclusive distribution agreement.

Now, does my assessment apply to Caachi? Well, as you could have guessed, NO.

In the spirit of giving filmmakers control over their films, Caachi doesn't require filmmakers to sell their souls just to get their films distributed on the Internet. So, we've decided that:

• there should be no minimum contract period and
  
• filmmakers partner with Caachi on a non-exclusive basis.
  

So, what's this exactly mean? Well, for starters, we don't require filmmakers to keep their films on our site for a minimum period of time. Filmmakers can pull their films down at any time. No questions asked. If you happen to get a deal with a studio distributor and it wants you to pull your film down, we'd say congratulations and thank you for allowing us to show your great film.

Also, you can partner with Caachi knowing you can work with other distributors, whether they are online or offline. We think Caachi is a great means to get your films to your fans but that doesn't give us the right to lock you up and stop you from getting the most out of your film. When we say we are giving filmmakers control over their films, we mean it.

So, back to the original question, should filmmakers wait before distributing through Caachi? Well, lets see: 

• Caachi partners with filmmakers on a non-exclusive basis;
  
• filmmakers are free to take their film down at any time, for any reason; and
• oh, yeah, Caachi gives filmmakers 75% of the sales revenue, without deducting expenses;

When it comes to Caachi, there's no risk to filmmakers and they can only benefit from Caachi's services. Caachi is breaking new ground online and getting films out to a global audience. Take advantage of Caachi's services and global reach. We're trying to empower the indie film community. Help us do that by showcasing your great works on Caachi.

Recent coverage in the NY Times on the lack of distribution deals going down at Sundance says a lot about the film distribution business as Hollywood works it. A data point: "Grace is Gone" picked up by Weinstein for $4M last year has made less than $37,000. That's a return of 0.9%. Think deeply about this number.  Will the filmmaker see any of that $37,000 or future ticket sales? Not likely - the marketing and distribution expenses have to be covered before anything goes to the filmmaker. At Caachi, we've come to the conclusion that taking the traditional route of pushing a film for nationwide theatrical, broadcast, and video release costs too much for most independent filmmakers - way to much to make a real living out of it anyways.  We think online distribution is the way out, where filmmakers can get better exposure and better pay for their work. Nobody (including us) right now has a complete understanding about how online film distribution should work but we at least know one thing: filmmakers need to get paid.