Being Creative is Risky

Today, I accidentally stumbled onto a review of my old comedy series. 

It’s not kind. Written in 2018, for a series that first came out in 2012, the anonymous reviewer proceeds to list many of the things I knew were deficient in the series. He (She? The whole review site is anonymous, so just guessing here) said one positive thing: “Video and audio quality, for the most part, are fine.” Oddly, I disagree with this. 

Everything else is sarcastic, critical, and somewhat deserved. My disappointment with this review is not that he didn’t like the things I don’t like, but that he missed the entire point of the show. He seemed confused that we would make fun of Christians and Christianity. He seemed to think we were being completely serious. So, he didn’t get any of the jokes. 

Of course, this review site isn’t something you would ever know. If I were reviewing the site itself, I might say…

“Leaving aside the horrible, outdated WordPress build, it’s difficult to find anything on the page. Publishing under an anonymous name does nothing to establish the author as any authority on Christian content. When it comes to series reviews, the author has only two categories- The Chosen and bad Christian series. If he is reviewing something Dallas Jenkins isn’t involved in, expect a low score.”

[OK, that was a bit cathartic. I’m aware my blog is also on WordPress, but it’s a blog… not a full-on website with multiple pages and sections.]

You see, even though I am aware of the flaws in that series, it hurts when some anonymous guy on the internet points them out AND doesn’t get the good parts at the same time. I suspect that the reviewer has never put out anything creative is his life. He has no idea what it’s like to spend hours trying to make something and send it out into the world. 

Being creative is risky. 

In a humorous twist, I also found out that both the series and short ebook about how we made the series were cited in a textbook. The book is strangely about humor in Evangelical and Mormon contexts. I would have bought a copy, but like all textbooks, it’s too expensive. I have no idea what they said about the series, except the author did reference my comments about the Christian TV market and changing the model to allow for more non-traditional content production. I could see that from an excerpt.

If you had asked me in 2012 if I thought that creative work would be cited (for good or ill) in a textbook, I would have laughed. If you had asked me if it would still be on the air or streaming a decade later, I would have said no way. It’s not on many places, but it is on. 

Being creative is risky. 

One of episodes singled out as terrible by the anonymous reviewer was the same one that NRB reviewed and awarded 2014’s Best Creative TV Programming. Now, I know there were not a lot of entries that year, so that doesn’t mean it was amazing. But the National Religious Broadcasters didn’t think it was as bad as the anonymous reviewer. Not everyone gets everything. Especially in a comedy.

Nothing you do creatively is going to appeal to everyone. [Insert one of the many, many stories of super successful people not being appreciated, getting turned down, etc…]

I’m not gonna’ lie, it sucks hard when you read that negative review. When some random person says something (that literally happened to you before) is a “trope” or isn’t believable. When he just doesn’t get what you spent so much time working on. Yes, the internet allows anonymous people to “platform” their opinions alongside more qualified reviewers. But it is inevitable that you will get a bad review, especially if your work is flawed. (And this series is seriously flawed. I am amazed at what we were able to accomplish, but it’s not amazing, itself.)

But it is very cool when you get positive feedback. Whether it’s an award, or that email from a fan saying it’s her family’s favorite Christian TV series, positive feedback feels great. My feature length documentary came out in 2019, and I still have speech & debate kids and parents tell me how much it means to them. That is a very cool, thing.

But be aware, there is no guarantee that anything you do creatively will ever get any positive feedback. You must decide what is worth the risk? Is your passion for your project enough to carry you? Your early work will be flawed. Know that. Part of growing and learning is doing. And your initial “doing” can be pretty bad. But you need that bad to get to better.

So, take the risk. Not because your current project is awesome (though it could be) but because your next project will be better.

Advertisement

Make an Impact, Judge a Round of Speech & Debate

TL;DR Summary: Sign up to judge a round at the Piney Woods Derby, a speech & debate tournament happening at Mobberly on Nov. 4-6. It’s fun and there will be prizes. Visit pineywoodsderby.com and click the link under Make an Impact.

I wanted to let you know about an event in Longview where you can have a direct impact on members of future generations. Let me explain.

On Nov. 4-6, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, there will be about 80 Junior High and High School students on competing in a speech & debate tournament. These are Christian homeschool students. You can have a direct impact of these students through your feedback as a judge for a round of speech or debate.

Before you say you’re not qualified, let me assure you that you are exactly who we want to come and judge these students. We use parents, alumni, and people from the community- just like you- to judge rounds. And- we train you in how to do it. Our students are learning to communicate with all audiences. And your feedback lets them know how they can improve, and what they are doing well. These kids are amazing, and they work really hard to compete in tournaments like this one. I don’t think it’s possible for me to oversell how awesome these students are. But don’t take my word for it, check out what others have said about these events: 

https://youtu.be/kxhLxDvzh1E

You could judge a speech round, which might be something these students have written themselves, or may be a funny speech, or a serious speech. You could judge a debate round, where competitors are debating the merits of artificial intelligence policy or modern medical techniques. Or other interesting topics.

And, for every round you judge, you will be entered in a drawing for prizes.

So, you get to have a real impact on a Christian student, you get to hear some amazing speeches or debates, and you could win a gift card or other prize just for judging. Win/Win/Win.

How do you sign up? Visit pineywoodsderby.com. Click the link under Make and Impact, Register to Judge Today. There you will see all the relevant information. It’s a 2-3 hour commitment to get trained, and judge the round. You can judge one round, or as many as you want.

PS: There will also be free snacks.

PPS: Still don’t think you’re qualified? Watch this:

Technical Director

For most of my career I’ve worked in Media or Media & Communications. There are parts of each that I really enjoy.

I work at Mobberly Baptist Church, a large SBC church in ETX. I started out at Mobberly in a video position, then about three years later I moved to a Communications only position. This was the first time I had no media responsibilities.

I’m not a graphic designer, so my tasks focused on project management, and expectation management, as well as web, PR, advertising, brand management, etc. I enjoyed much of what I did in Communications, but when COVID hit I flexed back into some media roles.

I hadn’t realized how much I missed live production. I was reminded how much I missed using video creatively. So, when the Tech Director position looked like it was going to be opening up, I talked with my boss about moving back into media.

Starting in September, I will lead our staff and volunteer teams in the areas of audio, video and lighting production.

My title is Technical Director, which is a true enough description. But there is a lot more creativity involved. I am eager to get back into more video production.

7 Ways to Make Social Media Better in 2021

Millions use social media on a regular basis. During 2020 and the COVID Pandemic, people have used it even more. And the flaws of social media have been showing. Misinformation, accusations of censorship, comment wars and more have made using social media a worse experience than ever before.

Here are 7 things you can do to help make social media better in 2021:

1. Don’t share posts you don’t know are true (even if you hope they are true).

Understand that confirmation bias is real, and we all have it. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Reality is almost never simple, and a meme that matches your wildest dreams is probably not completely true. A picture of someone else’s social media post is not proof or evidence. Do a little bit of research and make sure what you are posting is true.

2. Follow people with different viewpoints.

One of the ways social media encourages echo chambers is it reinforces what you interact with. If you only interact with one perspective, eventually you see less of other perspectives. If no one challenges your viewpoint, it’s easy to adopt false information as true. Break out of the echo chamber.

3. Don’t use social media for purely political purposes.

Be social. Remember when social media was fun? When you were catching up with old friends? Enjoying pics from family? Social media doesn’t have to be about politics. Use these platforms to enhance your relationships, instead of arguing.

4. Don’t read the comments.

Seriously, make a concerted effort to not get involved. Have you ever known of anyone to change their mind about religion or politics because of a comment war? I know, it’s hard. Especially when people are so wrong. But don’t join every comment thread. Make an effort to reduce the amount of arguments you have online. You will be happier.

5. Develop thicker skin.

Not every post is directed at you. There is no need to comment on every post you disagree with. Just scroll past.

6. Blood is thicker than water and friendship is thicker than ideas.

It’s sad that some ideas can come between friends and family. It’s completely possible to hold opposing ideas, and be friends. Just look at the late SCOTUS Justices Scalia and Ginsburg. They were on completely opposite ends of the spectrum, but were good friends. People are more than the sum of their political ideas. We can, and should, care about more than what political party someone is in, or whether they support the same causes we do.

7. Reduce the amount of time you spend on social media.

Doom Scrolling is real. And if you’ve allowed yourself to be entombed in a Social Media echo chamber, the world can seem bleak. Like the world is against you. But that’s not reality. Social Media, by it’s very nature, simplify’s ideas for easier sharing.

Read a book, read a news paper, watch a documentary, watch a news report. Don’t use Social Media as your main window to the world. In addition, call a friend or family member. Text them. Go on a walk. Interact with people and world outside of social media. You will be happier and healthier this year.

Misinformation on Facebook is Its Own Fault

I originally posted this on my Facebook feed. I understand the irony in posting complaints about FB’s algorithms on a feed that is controlled by that same algorithm.

Facebook has created the misinformation problem it has, but won’t take real steps to fix it.

Facebook helped create the environment that fed into the echo chambers that spread misinformation. Their current attempts to fix this are doomed to failure and could have unintended consequences. And they will not fix the root cause of the issue because it would hurt them financially.

Facebook desperately wants to squash misinformation. Their current method is to flag any post on certain subjects with a warning and link to what Facebook thinks is accurate information. There is no review of the posts which are tagged. Write any post, fact or false, with certain keywords and the warnings come up.

This has the consequence of classifying both true and untrue content together. Every post about these subjects is suspect. But Facebook will make sure to tell us all the truth.

An open platform should not set themselves up as the arbiter of what is true and correct. Aside from the fact they can be wrong, this can end up with two unwanted results.

First, there are those who want FB to be regulated. This move to try to self-regulate content sends a signal that content on these open platforms should be regulated. As objectionable as it is to have FB tell me what is true, imagine some sub committee made of up government employees or, worse, partisans appointed by what ever party happens to be in charge telling you what is true or false.

The second undesired result is that FB becomes a publisher not a platform. The natural next step beyond telling users what is true is to actively stop users from seeing what is false.

FB becomes a publisher, and is liable for what is allowed on its channel. And that goes beyond political speech. All sorts of copyright issues come into play. IP owners may not sue a 20 year old for posting their property without permission, but there’s money to be made in suing the publisher who posts it.

The biggest problem is that these attempts to stop the spread of misinformation and false information attack a symptom of a problem Facebook created and amplified with its own algorithms.

FB created news feeds which “feed” our own confirmation biases and create echo chambers for misinformation. The way to fix that is not for FB to tell me what is fact or fiction, but to change the algorithms to show a wider range of ideas. That addresses a core issue with the platforms in general.

People form common interest ties. They post common interest content. FB sees that you interact with that content and those friends and pages. They show you more of that content. Facebook bragged about this change a few years ago. They are showing us more of what we like and less of what we don’t.

FB would say this makes your experience on the platform better. It also make FB more profitable.

Companies buy exposure on my newsfeed from FB. These companies enjoy a very targeted approach to buying this space on my feed. If Facebook can narrow the types of posts, which represent the sort of interests I have, they can offer a better deal to advertisers. If I see posts and information across 100 interest areas, and interact with a broader range of people and pages, companies have to spend more, across a broader range, to get me to buy their stuff. If FB can lower that range to 75 or 50 areas of interest, their ad placements become more effective. Companies buy more ads and FB makes more money.

They have been doing this for years. Here’s how this practice led to the rapid sharing of what people think is problematic information. The medium inherently causes transmission issues.

Social media’s inherent requirement to distill complex, nuanced content down to simpler ideas comes into play. The “TL: DR” -too long, didn’t read- response was created because reading long and complex information online is hard. (Thanks for read this long and complex content in the internet)FB needs us to keep scrolling, so we can see more ads. So they prioritize images and videos, and downplay text. Any post or comment over a few sentences gets shortened with a “see more” link, so you can quickly scroll past it.

The result is complex issues reduced to memes and emotional entreaties. Now add the FB algorithm.

So person A has their friend group. A political meme gets shared from a page. Several people share it in that group. FB’s computers take note that content from that page was popular in this group of people. Meanwhile, another meme which didn’t fit into the group’s biases was seen and the group did not share it. FB notes that content was not popular.

Now, when that first page posts something, the algorithm doesn’t know whether it’s true or not. It just shows the content to the group. Meanwhile, content showing a contrary opinion from the 2nd source is not shown to them.

This goes on for literally years. Information that the group likes and that affirms their biases is reinforced to FB as what should be in their feed. Contrary information is reduced. Because FB shows us what we like, we eventually end up in an echo chamber. Ideas we welcome get reshared and commented on and liked. Ideas we don’t like, get seen less often.

Now election time comes. FB’s algorithm cannot distinguish fact from fiction. So it shares both true and false information with the group. And since FB has learned that contrary opinions don’t get the attention, they cut them out of the feed.

One day a piece of untrue information is shared. It fits what the group has previously interacted with, so the algorithm shows the group. No contrary information is provided. Person A sees that lots of their friends have shared the info. And since it fits into a preferred bias, and little to no opposing views are shared, person A believes it. And shares it, too.

Cut to today. We’ve got rampant misinformation and questionable sources being shared on Facebook. How do we fix it?

Facebook labels anything in the subject as potentially false and provides links to what FB thinks is true. This is bad policy.

To really fix it, FB has to stop tailoring newsfeeds the way it does. They need to broaden what is shown to users. Any page or person I have shown any interest in, by liking for friending them, should have the same opportunity to show up on my feed as those I regularly like or comment on.

This will impact the advertising dollars FB uses to operate. And that is why we see ham handed bandaids like what is happening now, instead of real change in the root causes of the issue.

Now, this isn’t all FB’s fault. We will still have confirmation bias and a tendency to resist what we don’t agree with. But FB can help by not reinforcing those tendencies. What they are doing now is wrong headed and will end badly.

Christianity Today, Editorials, and Cognitive Dissonance

[I know it’s Christmas Eve, but I was catching up on things and saw this pattern. Merry Christmas. Read this later.]

The dictionary defines cognitive dissonance as the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change. As a rule, we cannot maintain cognitive dissonance for long.

When we run into information that contradicts our personally held beliefs we must either refute/discredit the information or change our beliefs. Sometimes instead of discrediting the info, we discredit the source. (That doesn’t make the info false, but allows people to feel OK about ignoring it). Other times we rationalize our positions. (That also doesn’t make the info false, but does allow us to feel we’ve chosen the best position in difficult situations.)

When the new information is challenging issues of core beliefs, we are more likely to defend current opinions more strongly. It’s difficult to move people in their core beliefs.

Case in point- Christianity Today publishes an opinion of one editor. The article makes several points, and compares the current president to President Clinton, morally. CT is a previously trusted source (Many agreed with their criticisms of President Clinton), so Christians take note. But the opinion causes cognitive dissonance. Trump supporting Believers cannot accept the editorial and continue to support Trump. So we see the responses… CT is progressive, etc… (Attacking the source) What’s the alternative, supporting baby-killing Democrats? Lesser of two evils, etc…(Rationalizing)

For the record, I don’t agree with everything in the article. But I find it interesting that the primary criticism of the piece falls into those 2 categories- discrediting source and rationalizing, rather than point by point rebuttal of the points of the article. I’m sure there are some responses that do that, but most I’ve seen are pointing to the source or rationalizing.

People really don’t like it when their core positions are challenged.

What’s our go to response when presented with contradictory info? Do we discredit the source, rationalize our position, or refute the information or change our position?

My Podcast is Available on All Major Platforms

I just scheduled a new email update about my new podcast. I’ve written about this a bit, but the podcast is about developing a biblical worldview.

This has been a passion of mine for years. I have taught a few times and done a few Bible studies related to this. So, I was thinking about how to get that information out, and fell into the idea of a podcast.

Podcasting is popular, and there are ways to get them set up for free or very little money. And I was surprised that there weren’t any easily found podcasts about developing a biblical worldview. 

Allow me to introduce The Foundations Podcast, developing a biblical worldview in a Post-Christian world. It is available on all of the major podcast platforms, including iTunes, Spotify, and Google Podcasts.

The  podcast is about our view of the world, and how we create that worldview. I believe we have generations of believers in the church that do not have a biblical worldview. And, they don’t even know they don’t have one. 

I hope that listeners take away an understanding of how vital a biblical world view is, and some tools to help them understand issues through the lens of our faith and the Bible. 

Currently there are 3 episodes, with a 4th dropping later this weekend. You can see the podcast page at anchor.fm/foundations. I have a few more written and ready to record. Even a bonus Christmas episode next week. After I finish the first series, or season, I will take a break and see what other topics I might cover.

Please take a moment to subscribe through your favorite Podcast platform, and let people who might be interested know about the podcast.

Frustrated With Film Marketing

Just being real for a minute.

I spent a year and a half making a documentary that people in the target audience like. It’s far from perfect, but it’s been very well received. Here’s a short trailer I cut together highlighting some of the viewer reviews:

It’s the best thing I’ve ever made. So far.

So, I did a TVOD release, made it available for rental and sale. I marketed the film, did the email list thing, did the direct marketing to the target audience thing. I used social media to find audiences.

After the sales dried up, I started down the road of SVOD. Specifically focusing on Amazon Prime.

Now, I’ve written before about how terrible Prime royalty rates are. Basically, when people watch my movie all the way through, Amazon gives me $0.12. Twelve cents…

But, hey, everyone says that SVOD is how people want to view indie films. Even the people I know who took a survey about it said the same thing. People are more likely to watch through an SVOD or AVOD platform. So we just have to get more people to watch it.

And that brings me to the biggest frustration. I have not been able to find a way to advertise the movie to a targeted audience in a way that actually makes money.

I’m not talking about getting rich. I’m talking about making back the money it cost to make the film. Generating profit enough to make another one.

I have identified a great audience through Facebook, with about 370,000 members. Every time I run a brand awareness or traffic campaign I get great results. Sounds awesome, right?

Sure, if you can get people to watch for less than $0.12 a view, it’s great. But I have not been able to spend less than $0.40 per click. That’s just per click, it doesn’t mean people who click actually watch the whole thing. And sometimes it costs more, even up to $3.30 per click, using Facebook’s bid/auction placement.

When I ask experts on social media ads, they don’t have an answer. Most of the time they talk about using email lists, and building audiences. That’s great. Good advice when you’re making a movie.

But for this film, I’ve already plucked that low hanging fruit. I am ready to move to the next phase- where people who don’t know about the movie decide to watch it.

Is there no way to reach these people and see results that actually allows me to break even? No one seems to know one. It’s very frustrating.

For fun, I’m currently running a new test ad campaign. I’m limiting the bid to 6 cents per landing page view, and making the landing page the Amazon video page. I will see if FB can figure out how to serve up the ads. And if it will give any decent results.

Update: FB did not serve the ads. So, back to the drawing board.

To Prime or not to Prime: TVOD vs SVOD in Indie Filmmaking

Trying to make back the money it costs to produce an independent film is hard.

People expect entertainment for free. Really, I should say “free” instead. Nothing is free, but it’s not normally something people pay for at the time of consuming the entertainment. They pay a monthly (Netflix, Hulu) or annual (Amazon) fee, but when they sit down to watch a movie or show, there’s no transaction. Youtube is free, social media is free, even TV is free, if you don’t count paying for cable or satellite, or dealing with advertising.

Studios spend millions on overcoming this expectation. It takes a big amount of interest to trigger someone buying a movie instead of just “netflixing” it. And, I have found, it takes a lot of interest to trigger the purchase or rental of an indie documentary.

My film has been in the TVOD window, or Transactional Video On Demand window- meaning people who want to watch it must buy or rent it. I’m considering when to move to the next widow, which is SVOD and AVOD, or Subscription VOD or Advertising Supported VOD. It’s a big decision because the difference in margins is pretty large. In TVOD the split between platform and filmmaker ranges from 50-90%, depending on platform. Amazon Video is 50%. So if you rent a movie for $2, the filmmaker gets $1. Amazon Prime royalties are paid by the amount of time watched. And that royalty varies based on a number of factors Amazon calls an engagement score.

Given its current engagement score on Amazon, my documentary would generate $0.05 per hour of streamed video. (Max possible is $0.10) So, I would be making right at $0.08 per viewing of my entire film. (If someone watches part of it, then the royalty will be adjusted.) That means to make more money from SVOD/Prime than rentals ($1) I would need to have my film viewed 12 times on Prime vs rented one time.

Sounds crazy right? How can anyone expect a movie to be viewed 12 times as much as it is rented just by making it available to Prime subscribers?

Part of my issue is that most of the initial rush of purchases have already happened. People who already know about the movie have already decided to buy or rent it. To generate more rentals or purchases I have to introduce someone to the movie and then get them interested enough to spend money on the transaction. I have to trigger someone to overcome their expectation of free entertainment. Opening the SVOD/AVOD window could bypass that, but will it generate revenue?

So, I did a little survey among my friends. These are people I can easily reach through organic means (not paid) on social media and email. I asked 5 simple questions. There was a definite trend.

I should mention this is far from a perfect or scientific survey. It’s a snapshot of what people I know think about watching independent films. It’s also a bit skewed by the number of filmmakers who are included in the survey, so keep that in mind when reading the results. I will break that down a bit more as the article goes on.

29 total responses.

Survey results with filmmakers included:

29 responses. 3 people had give money toward a crowdfunding campaign for film. 12 had been in or helped make a film. 14 had never been involved with film before.

96.5% use an SVOD service like Netflix, Amazon or Hulu.
75% did not use an AVOD platform, like Crackle or Tubi.

65% said they either had or were willing to spend money an indie film (TVOD)
27% said the either had or were willing to watch an indie film on a “free” streaming platform. (SVOD/AVOD)
92% are open to watching your movie, if they are interested.

75% said they would rather watch an indie film on SVOD/AVOD.

Then I took out all of the filmmakers in the survey, leaving 17 responses.

53% said they either had or were willing to spend money an indie film (TVOD)
41% said the either had or were willing to watch an indie film on a “free” streaming platform. (SVOD/AVOD)
94% of these non-filmmakers are open to watching your movie, if they are interested enough. (That’s up 2% from when looking at the responses with filmmakers included… Weird)

76% said they would rather watch an indie film on SVOD/AVOD.

OK, so what does that mean?

Not a lot of people watch AVOD. Almost everyone has an SVOD service.

A lot of people say they will buy or rent an indie film, if they are interested enough. But in both versions of the survey, basically 3/4 say they would prefer to watch it through SVOD/AVOD. That makes sense, right? I’m already paying for the subscription, it’s easy to just add it and watch.

So while more than half are willing to consider spending money on your movie, it’s always going to be easier to get people to watch in SVOD. And, especially among friends and family, you can capture those TVOD transactions early.

Bottom line: After the initial rush of purchases by your committed fans, open the film up to SVOD. This should trigger the next level of fans, who might watch but are hesitant to pay money to watch.

Distribber Bankrupt?

Back when I was first thinking about indie film distribution, I heard about Distribber. It was a well-known aggregator. That is, it was a company that could take an independent film without the power of a full distributor or studio, and ge it placed on outlets like iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, and a bunch of other places.

Distribber’s model was that you would pay them several hundred dollars and they would submit your film. If they didn’t get the movie onto the platform, then you got a partial refund. Later they added a maintenance fee for titles, to help pay for the ongoing work to process payment. Because the outlets would pay Distribber, not you. Then Distribber would get around to paying you.

If you could afford the up front fees, this model sounds great to filmmakers. One time payment, and then all the revenue comes to us.

But apparently the model has flaws. Just from the outside, it seems like you need a constant influx of new films to keep the doors open. You would need that new income. If things slow down or something bad happens, this house of card will topple. But a few years ago, no one was worried.

I opted not to use Distribber because I didn’t have the up front cash, and I didn’t know how long it would take to recoup that outlay of funds. I did a few direct deals with outlets, and decided to go with FilmHub to try to get places i cannot go myself. Currently I’m letting them place the movie with TVOD places in the US, and everywhere around the world. FilmHub has no upfront fees (except $1200 with iTunes…) and takes 20% of any revenue generated.

Fast forward to this week. Rumblings and rumors abound about Distribber. Recent leadership changes and lack of communication are alarming some filmmakers. Alex Ferrari from Indie Film Hustle used to be a big proponent of Distribber. This week he came out and basically said he believed they are bankrupt. He received emails from Distrbber staff advising him to try to place fins using other means. And he sad he personally has thousands of dollars tied up with Distribber. They told him any refunds or payments will be handled through a 3rd party company during their “reorganization” which is often legalese for bankruptcy.

To my knowledge, Distribber has not said anything publicly about this.

Distribber’s website is live, but when you try to submit a film you get a message saying they are no longer accepting any new “orders”.

I don’t know how this will shake out. Any film submitted to a platform through Distribber will still be live and, until Distribber removes those titles, filmmakers are stuck. They cannot resubmit or remove the titles themselves. And they likely won’t get paid. At least not any time soon, if at all.

Business is a risk, and bankruptcy stinks for everyone involved.

My advice, such as it is- make deals directly with platforms and outlets as much as you can. It’s more work, but you limit your exposure. I only use aggregates to reach places i can’t on my own.

If indie filmmaking was easy everyone would do it.