Reports Previous Workshops
First Workshop Report – 25 to 27 April, 2012 – Sigtuna (Sweden)
Module 5 – New Formats
Challenges, Priorities, Evaluation, Conclusions
The new range of engaging media formats, the proliferation of media content, the Internet and the multiple points of access have formally fragmented national and mass audiences. Hence, it has become increasingly difficult to target a large enough number of people to justify a professional production. This development is mirrored in the formats, teams, processes and value chains.
Or, in other words:
- Are national and regional film funds prepared to meet the developments described above?
- If so: what strategies could they project?
- What would it take to prepare them to take the initiative?
- What are the challenges they will be facing?
- What exactly is it they would be funding?
- How could they evaluate which applicants to accept, and which projects in what phase?
- Some media funds have started implementing new frameworks to address the changes in the media landscape.
- How could funding bodies considering such steps benefit from their experience?
1. Challenges
- The major difference between a traditional film and Interactive projects lies with the functionalities that render such projects more complex (software production) and entertaining.
- Transmedia project formats entail far more uncertainty compared to film: the timeline from development to distribution is longer, the unforeseen constantly threatens to disrupt such projects, and the budgets keep changing, due, for example , to crowd funding...
- Development, production and distribution phases of media formats within a 360°-production may overlap.
- It is difficult to set up criteria and synchronize funding decisions, mainly for production, because multi-platform projects can involve different support programs within a same fund and/or different funds.
- Financial tools (e.g. loans, grants…) must be adapted to such an unpredictable timeline.
- There is a lack of specific expertise within the funds.
- New legal challenges crop up for this kind of projects when incorporating social media and user-generated content.
2. Priority Intervention Areas
- The development phase (including a pre-development phase) requires support, since it is longer and more expensive, thus riskier for the producer. It is important for the projects to be more advanced in terms of team, audience, platforms etc. for evaluation.
3. Project Evaluation
- Funds must have a flexible approach, given the challenges mentioned above.
- Financing multi-platform projects could seem risky, given that only 60% to 80% of project contents can be scripted.
- Funds should support projects of high quality and creative levels at each phase.
- The role of the producer should change: teams are often bigger with a new and wider range of professional profiles (e.g. technical director, community director; producers need to take a more creative lead, as only s/he can supervise the marketability of the content in the form of a media architecture.
- Projects should be considered more like an event than a film
4. Conclusion
- The funding bodies need to answer for themselves and their supporting governments whether trans- and new media projects are of cultural value in addition to economic value.
- Funds specifically addressing the film format must decide to either not participate in the change of media culture or broaden their expertise to incorporate the evaluation, funding and consultation of transmedial and new media projects. The latter option in turn entails training personnel or else hiring digital natives, handing out less money to former clients or consulting them through a new process (as well as meeting new clients), and attending more and new market venues.
- Some funds, e.g. the Digital Content Fund (Baden-Württemberg), have already adapted their strategies, to incorporate transmedial and new media projects in the stages of development and/or production. Here the question arises whether to fund a specific format or the development of a whole content universe. The latter option implies, in the case of a loan (economy-driven funding), a legal framework specifying when a world becomes profitable (i.e. the loan is to be repaid).
- New Media formats are often functional, in other word interactive. They thus need to be evaluated as to their usability. This implies that the funding bodies would have to include user-testing in their evaluation of the design and production. Transmedia projects are more complex, because they span a whole range of platforms. Different films, games or technology-driven funding bodies may become involved in one and the same project (e.g. “Farewell Comrades”). This implies a need for the funding bodies to communicate with each other.
- Furthermore, transmedia projects seem riskier due to their complexity, and the need to involve audiences at an early stage.
The Workshop made clear that there is a need to address the topic of digital technology and new media again at a subsequent meeting, in order to present different strategies regarding trans- or new media in action and to discuss such questions as:
- Is trans- or new media culture or not?
- Is there a need for a new kind of funding body to address trans- or new media?
- What will happen to film funding if funding of trans- and new media is done by other bodies?
- Where would the money for funding trans- or new media come from and how could it be raised?
- How could or should the phenomenon of crowd funding be integrated into funding schemes?
- Module 1 — The Role of Public Film Funds
- Module 2 — Partnership with Industry
- Module 3 — Strategies
- Case Studies Modules 1, 2 & 3
- Module 4 — Continuity and Newcomers
- Module 5 — Introduction by Keynote Speaker Inga Von Staden
- Module 5 — New Formats
- List of Participants (PDF)
- MEDICI First Workshop Full Report (PDF)
Illustrations by Daniel DePierre
Schedules Previous Workshops Partners Contact