Self Distribution Does Not Exist

It is distribution - period.

I am part of a monthly distribution discussion with a number of compatriots in our industry and recently I was asked to speak/comment on “self-distribution”.  Instead of speaking on self distribution - I went on a rant against calling any form of release “self-distribution” even if that release is filmmaker driven and has a large direct to fan component.   Self-distribution or “DIY” or “direct” distribution is not only a misnomer in nearly all cases, but is used to denigrate these  types of releases.   Somehow these films did not “qualify” for real distribution and hence had to settle for self distribution.  EG no one else wanted their film so the filmmakers had to do it on their own. 

As Barbara Twist, ED of Film Festival Alliance (one of the organizers of these discussions) pointed out, the phrase “direct distribution” can suggest an unscrupulous tone. After all, Amway calls itself “the world’s largest direct selling company”.  Rarely is a film’s entire release “direct” e.g. direct to audience anyway. 

As a community we must own all distribution - no matter who does the work - by simply calling it distribution. No “self”, no “DIY”, no “independent”, no “direct”.  Distribution with no qualifiers. E.G. so and so film was not self-distributed, it was distributed in the following ways: _______.  

Barbara continued: “People wrongly devalue films with traditional distribution, but in our system as-is, using qualifiers for distribution can draw negative attention away from the real work being put in on behalf of the film.”

Humans have an innate/evolutionary/biological need to classify.  That skill is essential when identifying poisonous berries - but classifications are usually a disservice to artists and filmmakers (a post unto itself).  

If you feel compelled to categorize filmmaker driven releases as anything other than distribution, or prefer to distinguish it to avoid the taint of traditional distribution, I would suggest using the term hybrid distribution as more accurate and much less perjorative.  This is what I wrote in Think Outside the Box Office fifteen years ago: 

“DIY is an attitude, or a point of view, more than anything else.  Filmmakers must use all techniques and models available to them to create a distribution strategy, and DIY is only one of those elements. … This is why I prefer the term hybrid distribution, (nod to Peter Broderick). Hybrid distribution allows filmmakers to combine limited deals with different distribution partners (e.g. educational, theatrical, television, home video) and direct sales from their website. 

I would prefer to expand the use of the term hybrid distribution to mean any time a filmmaker or media content creator uses a variety of techniques (conventional and/or unconventional, working with companies and/or DIY, old school and/or new school etc.) in order to distribute and market their content. This definition reflects the necessity to combine all forms and techniques into a new whole.”

Throughout the book, I use hybrid repeatedly - often using it as an alternative to the term “split rights distribution.” 

In the discussion group chat were comments that hybrid was not “sexy”, and that it reminded people of a car.  But as Barbara pointed out: “Hybrid implies the best of both worlds”.  So lets embrace it. 

I would argue that today the vast majority (if not closer to 95%) of independent films are doing some form of hybrid distribution.  There are very few distributors left that will truly market to a film’s audience and connect with them across a variety of channels - event/theatrical, VOD/broadcast, educational etc. 

For many distributors/platforms that acquire all rights, few of them will excercise/exploit all of those rights.  In nearly all cases, streamers are only releasing the SVOD rights of a film, even if they own all of the rights to that film.  Most, if not all, digital distributors are now very upfront that they do not market films - or at best they only do a very limited amount of marketing for a limited time and expect the filmmaker to do the marketing themselves. 

Since many if not most distributors/broadcasters/platforms that filmmakers are engaging with are only releasing one or one set of rights,  filmmakers should then engage direct to fan or other strategies to engage other rights. (Note D2A is one component of a release).  

For instance, I have worked with a number of films that have some form of PBS/POV/Independent Lens release - such as Sam Now - and all of those filmmakers have created robust plans for the rest of their rights.  In addition to their IL broadcast, Sam Now’s pro-active team had a 20+city theatrical release (8 Above), educational release (Good Docs), TVOD (BitMax), SVOD (Criterion Channel).   There are multiple distributors/platforms with the filmmakers driving it all.   

But I would never call that self-distribution.  I would call that distribution, or hybrid distribution.  What is the point or the need to call that “self” distribution or direct distribution or independent distribution - I think it is pretty apparent that none of those categories fits or makes any sense at all. It is of course just “distribution”.   

In talking to a number of people about this, one of the most common refrains is that hybrid distribution is often, if not vastly more successful and satisfying than whatever form of all-rights distribution traditional distributors and streamers do on behalf of films.  This has also been known for years. 

So let’s stop saying Self Distribution or DIY Distribution or Direct Distribution - call it Distribution. Or if you want - Hybrid Distribution.  Own it, embrace it, use it.