Tricia Tuttle, the director of the Berlinale, had asked whether applause length meant anything, so I looked into it. The data revealed that standing ovations at major film festivals are becoming far more prevalent, but that there is no meaningful correlation between the length of applause and a film’s later success.

What I did not expect was the reaction that followed.

The article was widely read and shared, and many people reached out to share their point of view. This included being invited to be interviewed by Matthew Belloni on his podcast The Town.

The episode is worth a listen as standing ovations are a point of particular interest for Matthew. He opened with:

I find it absolutely ridiculous that these ovations, which are driven by such disparate reasons…all of it produces these articles that appear at festivals. And people think that because the ovation is 15 minutes, that it’s actually a good movie.

He blamed the trade press, but also spared some disdain for the festivals:

The film festivals are complicit here. They like it because they need the stars to be in the room… If the ovation is going to be larger with the star in the room, then by all means measure the ovations because that gives the incentive for the star to be there.

Matthew’s questions prompted me to look deeper at how they are covered and interpreted by the trade press and professional film critics.

I looked at almost 2,000 articles and reached out to a number of top critics to understand more about what standing ovations mean.

How crucial are standing ovations for securing news coverage?

Let’s start with the film trade press. I collected 1,941 articles from Deadline, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter that mention standing ovations at one of the five major film festivals (Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Toronto and Sundance) over the past quarter century.

The results reflect the same pattern we saw last time, namely a sharp increase in coverage for ovations in recent years.

I classified each article to determine whether the standing ovation was a passing detail or the main reason the piece existed. This matters as if it’s the latter then we could say that the ovation had effectively generated new coverage for the film. Without the clapping, that article would not have been written.

This means that the clapping has created over 200 new articles that wouldn’t otherwise have been published.

Trade journalists have always relied on shorthand signals to convey industry consensus (i.e. box office, reviews, deals, awards buzz, etc) and the standing ovation has loudly joined that list.

How are the ovations framed?

Not every mention of a standing ovation becomes the story itself. Many appear as part of wider festival coverage, providing colour, validation or contrast.

Across the articles which were not solely about the ovation but do mention it, I found six common framings. They are descriptive rather than mutually exclusive, in which several pieces blend more than one.

1. Stopwatch PR (the “duration leaderboard”)

This is the most common form and arguably the one most associated with Cannes and Venice. These articles treat the ovation as a measurable achievement, complete with minute counts, rankings and festival records.

The implicit logic is that longer applause equals stronger approval. Reports often include side-by-side comparisons with previous films or note when a movie “beats” or “falls short” of another’s time. The language mirrors sports coverage with words like “clocked,” “timed,” and “longest so far” appearing repeatedly.

If anyone wants to join in with commentary on ovations in this way, they would be wise to take note of the differing methodology each outlet uses to define their report time, as shown in the previous research.

2. Tear-jerker reception (emotion as story)

This framing was all about human reaction and emotion, with the coverage focusing on the tears, hugs, relief, and catharsis. This mirrors the social media images and videos of actors crying or embracing that circulate widely which thereby converts the private ovation into a publicly shared emotional event.

Coverage of Brendan Fraser at The Whale is the most cited example, but similar moments recur with Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Dwayne Johnson (The Smashing Machine), Lily Gladstone (Killers of the Flower Moon) and Elton John (Rocketman).

3. Awards bellwether (the “Oscar launch” read)

For trade writers covering festival season, awards potential is a near-default lens. In this mode, the ovation becomes evidence that a film is entering the awards conversation.

References to “Oscar buzz,” “frontrunners,” and “launchpads” appear frequently. The articles connect present reactions to past campaigns such as The Shape of Water, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, Roma, Tar, to suggest a link between festival ovations and later nominations. I have already shown that this is not true, statistically speaking.

4. Market and deal framing (sales leverage)

Another framing ties the applause directly to the business side of the industry. In these pieces, the ovation signals buying interest, presales momentum or valuation strength. Phrases like “buyer frenzy” and “competitive bidding” often appear in the same paragraph as the length of applause.

This framing tends to dominate Sundance and Cannes reports, where acquisition activity is most visible. It treats the ovation less as artistic endorsement and more as marketing collateral. A seven-minute standing ovation can be positioned as evidence that the film “played well in the room”.

5. Spin cycle (countering boos or controversy)

Some of the most revealing articles use the ovation to reframe negative press. If a film receives boos at a morning press screening, its evening gala can be written up as redemption. Examples include Personal Shopper, Sea of Trees and Jeanne du Barry, where the narrative shifts from rejection to vindication within hours.

This juxtaposition between the ovation and the write-up is felt in other ways, too. When interviewed by Variety about the reception Pixar’s Elemental received in Cannes, Pete Doctor highlighted how out of step the ovation was was with the reviews released moments later:

Variety: Did you look at the reviews from Cannes?

Pete Doctor: That was a confusing half-hour there. The film played, we got a seven-minute standing ovation, and you could feel the love beaming down from the audience to Pete [Sohn, the film’s director]. They really responded to it. Then the embargo lifted and some of the reviews were pretty nasty.

6. Meta-ovation discourse (self-aware or sceptical pieces)

Finally, a smaller but growing strand of writing acknowledges the absurdity of the whole practice. These pieces critique the timing of ovations, question their significance, or suggest that nearly every gala receives one.

The Hollywood Reporter even published a call for a “cease-fire” on stopwatch coverage under the great headline:

Standing Ovations Are Getting Ridiculous. Who’s to Blame? (Okay, It’s Us).

During our chat on the On The Town podcast, Matthew Belloni was very open about his role while being Editorial Director of a major trade publication:

During my time running The Hollywood Reporter, I am complicit in this. I presided over the outlet that was doing this…because it got picked up. You’re looking for traffic and if you can say, ‘Controversial Cannes movie got a 20-minute standing ovation,’ all the aggregators would pick it up. That’s where this started.”

This brings us neatly onto the second type of follow-up research I conducted on the topic…

Critical critics criticism ovations

I reached out to a number of professional film critics to ask them what they thought of standing ovations at film festivals. Some spoke ‘on the record’ while others wanted to remain anonymous or only ‘on background’. All are Rotten Tomatoes–approved writers, many with decades of experience covering major festivals.

The consistent view I heard was that standing ovations are just theatre, rather than anything meaningful.

Little White Lies editor David Jenkins called the entire concept hollow:

[Standing ovations are a] completely artificial metric used to fill out pages of film trade publications and as bait for social media.

and when asked if they signify anything, he said:

They signify people’s capacity to be polite to celebrities presenting their art to the world.

Many pointed out the insular nature of the people taking part. James Berardinelli put it like this:

My perspective has always been along the lines of “what happens at film festivals stays at film festivals.” It’s a rarefied atmosphere with everything happening in a bubble. I can recall countless festival darlings that have vanished without a trace. (”Happy Texas” ring a bell?) People who attend festivals are die-hards (or, in some cases, politicians who want to be seen) and bear little resemblance to “regular” audiences. The gap has widened considerably post-pandemic.

Similarly, Peter Sobczynski described them as “performative gestures” rather than genuine reactions.

I think most of these standing ovations—particularly the elongated one breathlessly reported in the trades and online—are a bit silly and mostly a performative gesture towards the big stars sitting in the auditorium than anything else. For the most part, they are just noise and now that people are reporting on them as if they actually mean something, people do them because they think they are expected to now.

Mike McCahill described standing ovations as “one of the many absurd elements of the modern film festival experience.” He added:

I’m sure a small number of them are genuine, organic responses to great filmmaking, but many many more strike me as a mechanism contrived to flatter those creatives who’ve agreed to attend while also eliciting the maximum number of column inches. And in no way a reliable guide as to the quality of the film being cheered.

A self-sustaining cycle

Several critics noted the circular relationship between coverage and behaviour, such as John Bleasdale:

The reporting of applause has become silly and counterproductive but I know that these articles are clicked on. So readers say they don’t want them but click on them. Journalists know they’re silly but they get traffic.

And audiences know someone has a stopwatch even as they applaud and their hands sting.

A critic who wished to stay anonymous evoked the metaphor of a snake eating its own tail:

I‘m of the opinion that standing ovations at film festivals are a bit of an ouroboros where the reporting on the ovations encourages film teams to orchestrate longer and longer ovations for the sake of headlines, and so on.

Marshall Shaffer feels they did once have value but that the proliferation and reporting has undermined that.

I think of them as a once-useful tool for gauging audience sentiment out of big premiere screenings. However, they have now become a cynically deployed tool of PR launches used to game headlines that a cottage industry of “stopwatch journalism” has been all too happy to accommodate.

It’s all about the mood, not the art

For Helen O’Hara, standing ovations may capture the mood of a moment but not artistic value.

I think they’re pretty much irrelevant except as, at most, an expression of some sort of Zeitgeist. They can reflect the general popularity of a filmmaker or actor, or a general sense that the subject is important or worthy, as much as expressing enthusiasm for the quality of the filmmaking per se.

She also sharply observed that who’s in the room will affect the ovation intensity:

The presence of a major A-list star can affect the length of the ovation, I suspect. Those attempting to draw significance from a 10-minute as opposed to 15-minute ovation are, I would respectfully suggest, on a hiding to nothing

As a side note, I personally remember seeing premieres at the London Film Festival during the actors strike and the lack of big name talent in the room cooling the film’s reception.

Not a useful measure

A nameless critic said:

Every ovation carries its own set of variables, such as who’s in the room, what the film represents, how late in the day it’s playing, or whether the publicist is gently encouraging more applause. None of these factors can be standardised, which makes comparing durations meaningless.

Not every critic dismissed the practice entirely. John Bleasdale recalled instances where applause did feel authentic.

I’ve been in rooms where the applause has been a genuine emotional response and is kind of a reward for the filmmaker. The Voice of Hind Rajab for instance in Venice recently.

Do standing ovations affect the critic’s view?

Interestingly, most were open to the idea that an extended standing ovation is likely to lift their opinion of a movie, albeit only marginally. Marshall Shaffer said:

I’d be lying if I said they did not somewhat enter into my calculus, but they rank far below things like actual critical reviews or audience sentiment expressed on social media. I usually write off a short standing ovation, but a long standing ovation is likely to build the hype in my mind -- and likely set it up to underwhelm me.

A critic who requested to remain nameless said:

No one likes to admit it, but critics are human. When a room’s vibrating with applause, that buzz seeps in. For a moment, even the most jaded writer wonders if maybe they missed something everyone else saw.

Another said:

It’s hard to stay entirely immune to the energy of the room. A long ovation can create a sense of shared enthusiasm that lingers.

We’ll end on this anonymous scribe’s view:

At this point, I assume anything under 10 minutes means the audience didn’t like it. I remember reading that Beetlejuice 2 got a 3-minute ovation and thinking, “ouch.”

Further moaning reading

Finally, if you still haven’t got enough of people complaining about standing ovations, here are some choice essays you may enjoy:

• Measuring ovations is deeply silly’: what’s behind the rise of the standing ovation story? Screen Daily argues that the gesture has become so common it has lost its impact and is not a reliable metric for film buyers or marketers.

• Are standing ovations at film festivals getting out of hand? by Guy Lodge in The Guardian argues that standing ovations have evolved into a “publicity game” and a “clickbaity” metric that ultimately means “nothing at all regarding a film’s long-term prospects”.  

• When the Applause Just Won’t End by Shirley Li in The Atlantic, in which she calls them “awkward”. She spoke to a professor at the University of Michigan who said “It’s fun to kind of watch them as a sociological exercise”.

@luisalangeisajokeIS IT A LITTLE MUCH???? #venicefilmfestival #standingovation #standingonbusiness

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

I haven’t thought about it for a while but I recently received the following question on the topic from MarBelle, the Editor-in-Chief of Directors Notes:

I was wondering if in your data travels you have compiled any stats on the number/percentage of film festivals that still require premiere status.

I have not been at the coalface for a while, so I decided to find out whether that thinking still holds true.

To test this, I studied the official rules of 10,549 film festivals to see how many required some form of premiere status. Where a festival did specify premiere status, I noted whether it required a world, national, or local premiere.

Do the vast majority of festivals require premiere status?

In short, No. The overwhelming majority of festivals do not care whether your film has been screened at another festival.

Out of the full dataset, 9,894 festivals (93.8%) placed no restrictions at all. Only 26 festivals required a world premiere, 243 required a national premiere, and 386 asked for a local or regional premiere.

Given how small the percentages are, maybe it would be clearer if I show the same data as a bar chart.

So… premiere status doesn’t matter?

Not quite. The data above is just counting the number of festivals that require premiere status. It’s not taking into account the scale or importance of the festivals. I suspect that most filmmakers would prefer to win at “just” the Cannes Film Festival than 100 tiny locals festivals.

Events such as Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Sundance, Toronto, and Tribeca rely on exclusivity to generate press attention and attract distributors. Their programming depends on being the first to reveal new work and festivals like these do not want to programme films that have already circulated online or on the circuit.

But these top-tier events represent a tiny fraction of the overall landscape. Over the past two decades, the growth in film festivals has come almost entirely from the lower end of the scale, i.e. regional, genre, and community festivals that are run on tight budgets and rely on entry fees, volunteers, and local audiences.

In practice, this means that the traditional emphasis on premiere status still applies at the very top, but is not relevant everywhere else.

Why you might still target who you give your premiere to

Even though almost all festivals no longer demand a premiere, there can still be good reasons to offer one. Festivals, like filmmakers, respond to small gestures of recognition. Telling a programmer that your film will have its first screening with them might help your submission stand out from the hundreds they receive. It signals that you value their event and want to give them something special to promote.

A local or national premiere can also make your screening feel like more of an event. Festivals are more likely to schedule a Q&A, invite local press, or highlight it in their marketing if they can describe it as a premiere. That extra attention can help you meet other filmmakers, attract a larger audience, and create a better atmosphere in the room.

There’s also a practical advantage when it comes to audience awards. Viewers are often more engaged when they know they are among the first to see a film. The energy of a “first screening” can translate into stronger reactions, more votes, and better networking opportunities afterwards.

Further reading

If you’re a filmmaker on their festival journey then here are some of my past articles you may find useful:

• How much is the average film festival submission fee?

• How long is too long for a film festival film?

• How to prepare for ANY film festival

• What is the busiest day of the year for film festivals?

• Which film festivals are best for horror filmmakers?

Epilogue

I chatted to MarBelle after I finished the research to see what he thought of the results. He said:

As the editor-in-chief of Directors Notes, my position is no secret: I advocate for releasing your short film online early to maximize its reach as a core part of your festival strategy. The outdated belief that a film must be held back until the very end of its festival run is not only limiting but, as Stephen’s data confirms, largely unnecessary.

Having worked with countless filmmakers, I’ve seen first-hand how an online presence helps a film find a wider viewership than the festival circuit alone can provide. Crucially, it can lead to more festival selections, not fewer.

This data powerfully dispels the pervasive myth of the premiere requirement, confining it to the exclusive tier of festivals where it truly matters.

Cameron Bailey, head of the Toronto International Film Festival, said that he felt that the trade press’ coverage of standing ovations was “ridiculous but useful”. He noted that at this year’s TIFF Palestine 36 received the longest ovation but barely any reviews the next day.

Tricia Tuttle, the director of the Berlinale, wasn’t sure of how useful they were as indicators of how the film may go on to perform, and asked me to look into it.

So I have.

I gathered every reported instance of a standing ovation at five major festivals (i.e. Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Toronto, and Sundance) from online sources and the film trade press.

How often are standing ovations reported?

Standing ovations at film festivals are a surprisingly recent invention. In the 20th century, Cannes and Venice audiences were far more likely to make headlines by booing than by applauding at length. Antonioni’s L’Avventura (1960) and even Palme d’Or winners like Taxi Driver (1976) and Pulp Fiction (1994) all provoked jeers.

The only notable exception came in 1984, when Sergio Leone’s Once Upon a Time in America received a 15-minute ovation at Cannes, widely seen as both a tribute to the director’s final work and a protest against the butchering of his cut for the U.S. release

It wasn’t until the early 2000s, with Bowling for Columbine (2002) and Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), that marathon ovations became regular, timed, and reported.

Across these five festivals I studied (Cannes, Venice, Berlin, Toronto, and Sundance) since 2000, I found 529 screenings where an ovation length was reported.

From speaking to insiders, the consensus was that the recent surge owes more to the growing fashion for timing and reporting ovations than to a genuine surge in spontaneous applause. That said, it’s likely a symbiotic relationship, with increased coverage making ovations more common, and more ovations generating further coverage.

How long do these ovations last?

At Cannes and Venice, ten-minute ovations are commonplace, with Venice having an average reported ovation time of 8.7 minutes. By contrast, other festivals have shorter averages - Berlin (6.5 minutes), Sundance (6.4) and Toronto (6.3).

Looking more closely at Cannes, the festival most associated with marathon applause, the average length of a standing ovation in recent years has been around nine minutes. That’s down from peaks in the mid-2000s when films like The Artist (2011) and Mud (2012) drew ovations of around 20 minutes.

The longest recorded in my dataset is Fahrenheit 9/11 at 25 minutes, though others are not far behind. Joyeux Noël (2005) and Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) each at 20 minutes, and more recently The Room Next Door (2024) at 18 minutes.

By contrast, films such as Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) and Parasite (2019) were met with around nine minutes, which is relatively modest by Cannes standards, yet both went on to be critical and awards-season standouts.

Does it matter?

Tricia Tuttle’s request was to look at the correlation between applause length and the performance of the film.

Put another way, is the length of a standing ovation at a major film festival a useful indicator of the film’s future?

In a word - no.

There is no meaningful correlation between ovation length and the films’ awards performance, box office, or popularity with the public. There is a very slight correlation with Metascore and IMDb rating, but it’s not strong enough to be useful in any sense.

How accurate is the reporting?

Before we end, I did want to mention that this is a bit of a slippery topic to study objectively for a few reasons.

Firstly, what counts as a standing ovation is not as clear cut as it may first seem. When The Hollywood Reporter covered the Cannes premiere of Lee Daniels’ The Paperboy in 2012 they declared the ovation to be 15 minutes long, and that it moved the director and some cast to tears. However, a year later upon the film’s UK’s release, Robbie Collin wrote in The Daily Telegraph:

Readers of the film’s Wikipedia page may spot the claim that it received ‘the longest sustained standing ovation of the festival at 16 minutes’. As someone who was present at that screening, and the cacophonous quarter-hour of jeering, squawking and mooing that followed, I think Wikipedia may want to clarify its definition of ‘standing ovation’.

The film’s Rotten Tomatoes ratings (45% with critics and 33% with audiences), and poor box office performance ($3.8m worldwide on a $12.5m budget), chime more with the latter perspective.

Secondly, there is no universal criterion for timing the ovations. Despite the fact that the average Cannes ovation will be witnessed by almost 2,500 people (many of whom are professional journalists) there are a number of cases where the length of the ovations differs in reports the next day.

After a bit of data work and chatting to some insiders, this seems to be more about competing methodologies than conspiracy. Deadline appears to start the stopwatch at the beginning of the credits, whereas The Hollywood Reporter and Variety do so from the end

The chart below shows the average Cannes ovation length, based only on films where all three publications reported a duration. Deadline came in at the longest at 8.7 minutes, whereas The Hollywood Reporter and Variety largely agree at 7.4 and 7.0 minutes respectively.

Epilogue

I ran this article past Tricia to see if it answered her question. She confirmed it did, and in our conversation added:

I have always been circumspect about measuring world premiere ovations. As a Fest director, I know the premiere of any film has a high proportion of filmmakers, collaborators, friends and family. But I also love anything that ups the hype on cinema – we can use the buzz.

And that’s a perfect framing for this topic. Festivals are, after all, major part of an industry of storytellers telling stories about how they tell stories. The fact that there are stories about the screenings themselves should come as no surprise.

Standing ovations may not be science and they don’t correlate with what comes next, but they do add to the overall salience of a premiere.

So long as nobody mistakes them for hard data (and so long as they aren’t used to make business decisions or to disparage the people who made the films) they seem fairly harmless.

That was just a fun, back-of-the-napkin figure, based on a quick average cost. It caused a lot of conversation and follow-up questions, so I returned to the topic to apply a little more rigour and detail.

I gathered submission fee data for 4,631 film festivals and set about understanding what filmmakers should expect to pay for each submission.

Soon after I had started the research I realised it was going to be more complex than I first thought. Film festivals tend to have multiple categories as well as sliding fees based on how close the submission date is to the festival.

The categories might relate to:

• Running time. Shorts and features rarely compete with each other but many festivals go one stage further and further divide short films by length, such as under 90 seconds, 2 to 5 minutes, etc.

• Format. This could include live action, documentary, animation, experimental and, more recently, AI-generated.

• Genre. Some festivals have an overall genre focus while others have particular genre strands.

• Themes. These could include sports, dance, LGBTQ+, faith or social issues.

• Locality. The background, nationality, or home location of the filmmaker(s) may mean they are included or excluded from certain strands.

Once you have picked your categories, you will be charged a different fee based on the date. The typical deadlines are:

• “Early” - This will typically be the first opportunity you get to submit your film and could be as much as a year before the festival will actually take place.

• “Regular” - This has no real meaning beyond the fact it’s between the others.

• “Late” - In some cases this is the final deadline, while in other cases it’s the same as above.

• “Final” - In theory, this is the very last date you can submit your film and still have it considered for the next edition of the festival.

The average festival I looked at had 37.5 different fee options. Yes, that’s right - almost 40 combinations on average!

But this average is being dragged up by 10.6% of festivals who offer more than 100 combinations. Across the dataset, half of festivals had 15 or fewer submission fee combinations each year.

If we split the fees only by whether it’s a short or a feature, and by the time-based deadlines, then we discover that the average submission fees for short films are between $30 and $55.

For features it’s between $47 and $87.

For whatever reason, film festivals have collectively decided that experimental filmmakers have less money than live action or animation filmmakers.

And that horror filmmakers are the cheapest.

Why do festivals charge submission fees?

There are two answers to this, depending on the festival and who’s answering the question:

1. Because running a festival is expensive. The majority are non-profits, both in the sense that they are registered charities and that they typically lose money each year. When the indie stalwart the Raindance Film Festival opened up their accounts to me a few years back, we learned that submission fees accounted for a third of their total income.

2. Because they know filmmakers will pay. A more cynical view of submission fees is that festivals are charging money based on the hopes and dreams of filmmakers. The decision of which to submit to is typically made on very little information - just the name, self-written description and some photos/graphics.

There’s even a question over what the fees actually cover. In 2024, WorldFest-Houston cancelled all of its public screenings but refused to return submission fees. The organisers argued that fees cover the cost of judging and administration, not the screenings themselves, and so no refunds were due.

Filmmakers and festivals also disagree about how much of a film the festival is obligated to watch in return for the fee. Filmmaker Chris Suchorsky sent separate Vimeo links to each festival and tracked the views. Some festivals did indeed watch it all, but some only watched a small amount of his film and in at least one case there were zero views, despite the festival banking the submission fee. Only when they queried the festival did a handful of “plays” suddenly appear.

It’s worth noting that Chris Suchorsky’s Vimeo experiment took place quite some time ago, and that Vimeo themselves have since acknowledged that their analytics are not always 100% reliable. In addition, festival screeners are often based all around the world, making it difficult to connect a viewing location directly to a particular festival office. But the concept behind the method remains a useful illustration of filmmakers’ concerns about whether their work is fully considered.

A brief history of film festival submission fees

The very first festivals didn’t charge at all. Venice, Cannes and Berlin were funded by governments and tourism boards, and films were submitted through ministries of culture, not individual filmmakers. A filmmaker couldn’t just put their film in the post and hope for the best.

That changed in the 1970s and 80s, when independent filmmaking expanded and new festivals like Toronto and Sundance appeared. These events didn’t have state backing, and they needed their own income streams.

The spread of VHS was the real turning point. For the first time, filmmakers could copy and mail their work cheaply. Submissions multiplied, and festivals introduced fees both to cover the paperwork and to slow the flood. What had once been a rare administrative charge became the standard way to fund and filter the growing circuit.

The next big shift came online. In 2000, Withoutabox centralised submissions and promised to simplify life for filmmakers and festivals. At first it worked, but over time the tale turned sour.

Withoutabox controlled the market through an unusually broad patent, covering little more than the idea of submitting films to festivals online. It was granted in 2001 and effectively blocked rivals for more than a decade. IMDB (and therefore Amazon) bought Withoutabox and aggressively defended their patent. Film festivals grew to hate Withoutabox but the patent meant they had to keep on using it.

FilmFreeway launched in 2014 with the opposite pitch: free to use, HD screeners, lower commissions. They stood up to Withoutabox via a mix of smart thinking and dirty tactics. They called Amazon’s bluff and took the festival scene by storm.

Withoutabox tried to fight back, via under the counter payments to festivals to stick with them, but they were no match for the new contender and finally shut down the service in 2019.

FilmFreeway itself was bought by Backstage in 2021 and is now the dominant leader for festival submissions. Most filmmakers rely on it and most festivals list on it. But with near-total dominance, some of the old grumbles are returning about commissions, about reliance on a single gatekeeper, and about whether we’ve just swapped one monopoly for another, albeit not one locked in by an overly broad patent.

The sheer ease of submitting has also fuelled a fee-driven gold rush. Thousands of festivals, both serious and questionable, have leaned into the model, multiplying categories and deadlines in order to capture more submission income.

Further reading

If you want a deeper dive into festivals, here are some past articles which may be of interest;

• Scandal behind the Withoutabox / FilmFreeway beef - US6829612: Withoutabox's Dirty Secret, then the fight began The seismic shift in the world of film festivals and ended here What's changed in the world of film festivals?

• Survey of film festival directors - What film festival directors really think

• Financial transparency - Full costs and income of a major film festival - Raindance Film Festival

• Tips and advice - How to prepare for ANY film festival, and specialised articles for Cannes, Sundance, Berlin, Toronto, and SXSW.

Notes

Today’s research is based on the fees charged by 4,631 film festivals. The figures came from official festival websites, listing sites and public aggregators. I translated the figures into USD for comparison.

When I’m talking about fee combinations I am not including the discounted version of fees that festivals have to offer to paying Gold members of FilmFreeway. So if you want to include those discounts, double all the combination counts!

Epilogue

I was expecting there to be a few instances of festivals charging very high fees but I was shocked by the gall of some festivals. There is no justification I can think of for charging over $100 for short film submission. It doesn’t matter how specialised the festival, nor how late the deadline is, nor how long the festival has been running - it’s just wrong.

I decided against naming and shaming individual festivals in this article, because I can’t do enough due diligence in each case to know if it’s the exception. Hypothetically, some festivals could offer terrific value (i.e. feedback, hotels, private jets, etc), and/or some other kind of advantageous small print (i.e. returning fees if not selected, etc).

Therefore, I thought it best to err on the side of caution and not mention the most egregious cases.

But there’s no doubt that there are more than a handful of festivals outright exploiting filmmakers’ hopes and dreams via exorbitant submission fees. Shameful.

A while back I interviewed over 500 film festival directors. When I asked them to give advice to filmmakers, about half mentioned the running time of films submitted to their festival. And the data looked like this:

• 0% = "Please can you make longer films"

• 100% = "Please, please, please make shorter films"

Below are just a few of the quotes on the topic from film festival directors:

If you’re intending to make a short film, timing is of the essence! Short films that are over 25mins are incredibly difficult to programme into an event, and longer ‘short’ films have to be very VERY strong in order to make it through.

Filmmakers are long winded about their subject matter and shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak. Knowing how to tackle and get to the heart of the subject matter is the key to brilliant filmmaking.

Filmmakers often think that 10 minutes isn’t long enough for their film. Audiences often know that 10 minutes is too long for a first film.

Make your film shorter – 5 minutes or under and it will increase its likelihood of being selected.

That’s sage advice but it’s time we brought some numbers to the party.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which sets the rules for the Oscars, draws the ‘short film’ line at 40 minutes. Anything longer qualifies as a feature.

BAFTA leans in the other direction. It suggests films under 70 minutes may not qualify, reflecting a preference for longer work. SAG-AFTRA uses 60 minutes, but that's mostly for labour contracts, not artistic intent.

France takes a more technical route. The CNC defines a feature using the physical length of 35mm film: anything longer than 1,600 metres. That translates to exactly 58 minutes and 29 seconds.

Complicated length rules seem to be popular in France. Clermont-Ferrand, one of the most important short film festival in the world, allows international shorts up to 40 minutes. But if you're French, the domestic category gives you a full 59 minutes to work with.

I decided to take the largest view possible, by studying the rules of just over 13,000 film festivals.

More shorts are made than features, so we’ll start there, before turning to feature films.

Short films

The vast majority (83.8%) of film festivals do not state a minimum running time for a short film to be eligible. Even those that do, keep it fairly short. Fewer than 2.2% of festivals require their short films to be at least five minutes long.

It’s not usually the minimum length requirement that trips filmmakers up, but the maximum. And this rule shows a much wider range of figures in the data.

The most common cut off was 30 minutes.

We can combine these two sets of data points to see how the running time of your short film affects your overall eligibly on the film festival circuit.

Eligibility stays above 85% until about 15 minutes. After that, it drops sharply. By the 30-minute mark, only around half of festivals are still in play. If your film runs over half an hour, you've already lost access to more than a quarter of festivals. Past 45 minutes, that becomes over 90%.

This means, if you make a 90-second short film then it is eligible for nine out of ten film festivals. (It’s worth noting that the combined submission cost of doing so would be around $312,951 - more on that in the Notes section).

Next up features.

Feature films

Feature films are where the term “minimum” gets fuzzier. Technically, 3.7% have no lower limit at all and nearly 10% said they allow "features" under 30 minutes.

My suspicion (and from what I’ve seen this in festival language) is that “feature” doesn’t always mean “feature film” in the commercial sense. Some festivals use it to mean “main event” or “primary slot.” That’s fine on the festival circuit, but if you’re trying to sell your 39-minute feature to a distributor, you’ll have problems.

The most common festival threshold is 46 minutes (36.1% of festivals), followed by 30–45 minutes (31%).

At the other end of the spectrum, almost three-quarters of film festivals don’t have public rules about the maximum runtime for feature films.

When they do, fewer than 10% draw the line at 2 hours or less and only 0.7% have a stated cap below three hours.

So in theory, your 4-hour documentary is eligible at most festivals but in the real world, it’s a tough sell. Festivals might even want to accept it but struggle to find space in the schedule. I discussed this dynamic more in Why do cinemas hate long movies?.

This is where filmmakers need to think wider than just festivals. While 30 to 45 minute “features” are accepted on paper by a third of festivals, they fall into a dead zone for many distributors, broadcasters and cinemas.

You’re too long to play as a short, you’re too short to fill a standard slot, and for buyers, you’re too much work to package into a schedule.

So yes, festivals will accept you. But what happens after the laurels?

In past research entitled Are movies getting longer? I found that the average theatrically released film runs about 106 minutes, and the average top-grossing title runs 114 minutes.

A practical cut-off guide

To summarise the official eligibility rules of the festivals I looked at :

Short Films

• Under 10 mins: Eligible at 90%+ of festivals

• 10 to 20 mins: Eligible at around 56%

• 21 to 30 mins: Eligible at about 26%

• Over 45 mins: Eligible at just 8.4%

Feature Films

• 30 to 45 mins: Accepted by ~30%, but may be classified inconsistently

• 46 to 60 mins: Safely “feature” for most festivals

• 60 to 90 mins: Accepted everywhere

• Over 3 hours: Technically allowed by 70%+, but hard to schedule

So how long is too long? It depends what you’re calling it.

If you’re making a short, anything over 20 minutes is going to shrink your festival options dramatically - and probably your audience too.

If you’re calling it a feature, make sure it crosses 45 minutes at the very least, though ideally you’ll aim for 80+ to make it saleable.

In the end, the shorter version is almost always better. But knowing the cut-off points lets you weigh that choice properly.

Notes

The data on festival running times comes from the official rules of 13,038 festivals staged over the past decade, with the majority occurring in the last three years.

I focused on fiction shorts and feature films wherever possible, though some festivals blur those lines by including music videos, documentaries or “special feature” slots in their rules.

The calculation of average submission costs uses an internal dataset built from thousands of published entry fees across a wide range of festivals. Sources include official festival websites, listing sites and public aggregators. The figures shown here are only used to illustrate potential cost ranges. If readers are interested, I can publish a separate breakdown of average festival entry fees and how they vary by size, geography and type of event.

But as I plan out my travel for the next six months, I was surprised how many major film events are yet to take place.

So I thought I would dive into the numbers to discover when is the busiest period for film festivals.

I gathered data on the operating days of the top 50 films festivals over the past quarter century.

When do the biggest film festivals take place?

Most film professionals who attend festivals know of the rough dates of the biggest five festivals:

• Sundance - January

• Berlin - February

• Cannes - May

• Venice - August / September

• Toronto - September

These act as the spine of the festival calendar.

However, it’s wasn’t always this way:

• Berlin began in June, but in 1978 shifted to February. The move gave Berlin an open slot at the start of the year, away from the shadow of Cannes and Venice.

• Cannes made an even more significant move after the Second World War. It originally fought Venice head-to-head in September. In 1952, Cannes switched to May. The aim was to avoid direct rivalry with Venice and instead position itself as the main spring event.

• Sundance also started out in a different part of the year. The Utah/US Film Festival ran in September, but changed to January from 1981 onwards.

But these are far from the only film festivals. I looked at 50 major festivals and noted which days they took place on.

What is the busiest days of the year for film festivals?

Overall, the busiest two days were 12th and 13th October, each accounting for 0.9% of all the festivals days I tracked over 25 years.

In contrast to my own presumption, only 44.3% of the festivals days have taken place by the midpoint of the year. This is more surprising when you take into account how unpopular December is, containing just 3.4% of festivals events.

Almost a fifth of all film festival events happen in the month of October.

What affects film festival dates?

When festival organisers pick their dates, they are weighing a number of factors, including:

• The proximity of rivals. Organisers want their festival to stand out, so they look to avoid direct clashes with similarly sized events that compete for premieres, press, and industry attendance.

• Timing within the awards season. Festivals that feed into national or international awards cycles can boost their status by giving films a timely platform for launches and securing their place in the awards conversation.

• Local, school and public holidays, could affect volunteer numbers and audience turnout.

• Local factors which may affect venue availability and practical concerns of travel and hospitality. Choosing dates that align with periods of lower hotel and flight prices can make a difference for attracting guests and international delegates.

In a piece of research I conducted last year, I looked at most common days of the week for film festival dates (ranging from when they run to when they accept submissions).

I found that festivals most commonly begin on Fridays, with one in four of the festivals I studied starting on that day. This makes sense given the focus on weekend attendance, allowing attendees to participate without taking significant time off work.

Covid vs festivals

Force majeure can mess with even the best laid plans. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic forced a total rethinking of how film festivals operate.

Almost overnight, physical gatherings became impossible, and the longstanding rhythm of the global calendar broke down. Each festival responded in a slightly different way.

Cannes provides the most visible example of disruption. In 2020, organisers first postponed, then cancelled the physical festival for the first time since 1968. Rather than shifting online like many others, Cannes announced an “Official Selection” of 56 films, allowing those titles to carry the festival’s seal of approval.

Venice went in a different direction. In September 2020, it became the first major festival to return as a largely physical event, thanks to strict capacity limits, social distancing, and rigid health protocols. To reduce crowding, Venice introduced outdoor screenings, cancelled the Sconfini section, and moved its virtual reality component online.

Sundance was one of the first to build a robust digital model. Its 2021 edition ran entirely online, supported by a dedicated platform and a network of local partner cinemas across the United States. When faced with another COVID surge in early 2022, Sundance successfully pivoted from a planned hybrid festival to fully virtual less than three weeks before opening.

Berlin showed yet another approach. In 2021, organisers split the Berlinale into two distinct events. The first was a digital-only industry market in March, which allowed the European Film Market to proceed. Then, in June, Berlin hosted public open-air screenings and events in cinemas across the city, keeping both industry and public engagement alive while working within public health rules.

Advice on visiting film festivals

If you are preparing to attend a festival you may find it useful to read my piece called How to prepare for ANY film festival.

It was created from over a decade of surveys and conversations with filmmakers, producers, and festival directors and contains the 20 things people consistently say make a festival trip worth the time and money.

Cannes Confidential

6.61MB ∙ PDF file

Download

The Raindance Guide to Navigating the Cannes Film Festival and Marché du Film

Download

Over the years, I’ve asked thousands of filmmakers, producers, sales agents, and festival directors what helps people get the most out of attending a film festival.

I’ve gathered their answers from surveys, interviews, panels, and first-hand conversations at Cannes, Sundance, Berlin, Toronto, and SXSW. This guide brings those tips together.

Here’s how to make sure the trip is worth it.

Part 1: Before You Go

1. Be clear on why you're going. Write down your main reason for going and let it shape your plan.

2. Sort your badge early and check what it includes. Make sure your badge gives you the access you actually need.

3. Book your accommodation early and stay near the action. Stay central or near shuttle routes to save time and stay flexible.

4. Start a target list of people and companies. Know who you want to meet and start setting up contact before you arrive.

5. Get your materials sorted now. Have a simple and useful way for people to remember and follow up with you.

6. Learn how the ticketing system works. Understand how bookings queues and screening access work before you get there.

7. Pack like you won’t be coming home during the day. Carry what you’ll need for a full day on your feet with no chance to recharge.

Part 2: While You’re There

8. Don’t try to do everything. Pick one or two important things each day and leave space around them

9. Be there over the first weekend. That’s when the industry crowd is biggest and the key events take place

10. Make time to watch films especially shorts. Watching others’ work leads to stronger connections than just talking about your own.

11. Go to talks and panels. Panels are full of useful insights and the speakers are usually easier to approach afterwards.

12. Say yes to things especially last-minute invites. The most valuable conversations often happen in places you did not plan to be.

13. Talk to people in queues, cafés, and shuttles. You will meet more interesting people in line than at most official mixers.

14. Follow up quickly while people still remember you. A short personal message within a day keeps the door open for what comes next.

15. Don’t waste time chasing big parties. You will get more out of casual events where people actually talk.

Part 3: After You Leave

16. Follow up properly. Send a quick message that reminds them who you are and why they might want to stay in touch.

17. Keep track of who you met and what they do. Write it all down while it is still fresh so you are not guessing later.

18. Stay in touch even when there’s no deal yet. Relationships grow slowly and staying in touch matters more than making a quick ask.

19. Write down what worked and what didn’t. Make your own checklist for next time while it is still clear in your head.

20. Think about what’s next. Use what you learned to follow through with the people and ideas that moved things forward.

Let’s go through those tips in more detail, along with some choice words of wisdom from my past interviewees:

Part 1: Before You Go

1. Be clear on why you're going

• Before you book a single ticket or open the schedule, be honest about what you want from the trip.

  • Are you hoping to meet potential collaborators?

  • Are you trying to get a better sense of how the industry works?

  • Are you there to learn, to connect, or just to be inspired?

• Write your main goal down. Keep it visible. It should shape what events you go to, who you talk to, and how you spend your time.

• Without a clear reason, it’s too easy to drift.

2. Sort your badge early and check what it includes

• Different badges offer different access.

  • Some include priority entry, industry screenings, delegate directories, networking lounges, or access to workshops.

  • Others are little more than a lanyard and a long queue.

• Don’t just go for the cheapest option.

• Match the badge to your goals.

• If the pass you want is expensive, check if you’re eligible for a discount as a student, emerging filmmaker, or regional delegate.

3. Book your accommodation early and stay near the action

• The closer you are to the venues, the more you’ll get out of each day.

• At major festivals like Cannes, Berlin, and Sundance, central accommodation books out months in advance.

• Look for walkable locations or access to shuttle routes. Staying too far out will cost you hours a day and make it harder to say yes to spontaneous invites.

• If you’re travelling as a group, consider splitting the cost of an apartment.

• Check whether your accommodation has fast Wi-Fi and a place to work quietly if you need it.

"Staying too far out will cost you hours a day and make it harder to say yes to spontaneous invites."

"If you're a night owl, you may be forced to either get an expensive taxi or wait for the trains to start again."

4. Start a target list of people and companies

• Go beyond hoping to “meet people.” Make a shortlist of the individuals or organisations you most want to connect with. This could include other filmmakers, producers, funders, or festival programmers.

• Look at the speaker lists, market attendees, or recent festival selections.

• Check which of your friends or contacts are also attending and see who they can introduce you to.

• Use Cinando or festival apps if available. Set up meetings before you travel. Cold intros are hard to land mid-festival.

5. Get your materials sorted now

• Have a quick way for people to remember and contact you.

Read more

To help this year’s attendees, I reached out to past festival attendees for their best advice. And boy, did they deliver. This article distils the insights of over 200 people who generously shared their experiences.

What stood out most was just how much people love SXSW. Again and again, I heard about the energy, the creativity, and the sheer joy of being part of something so dynamic.

But they also emphasised the importance of preparation. Many described feeling overwhelmed by the non-stop pace, the endless choices, and the challenge of balancing it all.

So, here’s a guide to making the most of SXSW - navigating the chaos, seizing opportunities, and connecting with the people and ideas that make it special.

Enjoy!

1. Before You Arrive

• Define your goals. Many attendees stressed the importance of being clear about why you’re attending - whether it’s networking, showcasing your work, meeting potential investors, or simply soaking in inspiration. Many highlighted how SXSW merges film, music, and tech, making it a great place to expand creative connections beyond just the film industry. One filmmaker shared, 'I didn’t expect to meet so many people outside my field, but those conversations ended up being the most valuable.'

• Choose the right badge. Several people recommended understanding badge types in advance, as access levels vary significantly. One interviewee said, 'I wish I had realised how limited my access was with the wrong badge.' SXSW offers four badge types:

  • Platinum ($2,195) Primary Access to all SXSW events and other perks.

  • Interactive ($1,595) Primary Access to all conference events, and secondary access to Film & TV screenings and Music Festival showcases.

  • Film & TV ($1,355) Primary Access to all SXSW Film & TV Festival screenings, Film & TV sessions, mentors and workshops, Comedy Showcases, and secondary access to Interactive and Music Programming.

  • Music ($895) Primary Access to Music Festival showcases, music programming, mentor sessions, and workshops, Comedy Festival showcases, and secondary access to Interactive and Film & TV programming.

• Link your badge online. Upload a photo and link it to your SXSW account via id.sxsw.com before picking it up. Many attendees mentioned that skipping this step caused delays at badge pickup.

• Register and book accommodation early. Hotels sell out fast, and multiple people warned that staying too far from downtown can make navigating the festival much harder. If you can, stay near downtown Austin to avoid long commutes.

• Pack wisely. Essentials include:

  • Portable charger as you’ll be on your phone constantly for scheduling and networking.

  • Business cards and/or a QR code for exchanging contacts.

  • Your water bottle is your friend as Austin can be warm, and staying hydrated is crucial.

  • Layered clothing helps you deal with the fluctuating Austin weather.

  • Comfortable shoes were listed as essential by many people as you’ll be walking miles each day.

  • A small bag for carrying essentials and the free stuff you’ll collect.

  • An old-school notebook & pen will save you when your phone is dead.

  • Free food is available, but it’s best to have packed snacks too, so you always have something on hand.

Do your research and sign up for events as soon as the guide/program comes out. There were so many amazing seminars, screenings, speakers at the festival the year I went. But I didn't make it to most of them because I kinda figured, I'll just go to things I want when I want to. But these events fill up really fast.

Wes Hurley, Filmmaker/Writer

2. Badge Pickup & Event Access

• Badge collection is available from March 2–15, with Friday, March 7 being the busiest. Arrive early to avoid long lines (see badge pickup hours). You will need a government-issued ID to pick up your badge.

• SXXpress passes provide front-of-line access to high-demand events. They can be requested through the SXSW GO app or the SXSW Schedule, starting at 9am the day before the event (two days before for Platinum badges).

  • Platinum badge holders can book up to 5 passes per day, 2 days in advance.

  • Interactive badge holders can book up to 4 passes per day, 1 day in advance.

  • Film & TV badge holders can book up to 3 passes per day, 1 day in advance.

  • Music badge holders can book up to 2 passes per day, 1 day in advance.

• The SXSW event status system uses a Green-Yellow-Red system to indicate venue capacity. Check the SXSW app or digital venue boards before heading to an event.

• Arrive early. For screenings, plan to be in line at least an hour in advance. Queue cards are handed out to badge holders until capacity is met, but you have to stay at the venue once you have one.

• Always have a backup plan. If a session or screening is full, pivot to another event instead of wasting time waiting.

• Use SXXpress passes wisely. These are best reserved for the biggest keynotes, most anticipated screenings, or major panels.

• For Film & TV screenings, queue cards guarantee entry if you stay in line. If you don’t get one, Buffer Cards are handed out next - these allow entry if space becomes available.

• For Music showcases, some venues offer general admission tickets once badgeholders have entered, so check if that’s an option.

SXSW distinguishes itself from traditional festivals due to its unique convergence of creative industries, everything from film to music to tech innovations and everything in between. It's a more casual and experimental vibe than you would see at, say, Cannes, and first-time attendees would find themselves networking with a wide range of creative industries.

Jill Rosen, Conscious Hollywood

3. Getting Around

• Use maps.SXSW.com for live shuttle tracking, venue maps, and navigation.

• Free shuttles run between major venues, making it easier to navigate the city. They are a great option, but they fill up quickly during peak times.

• Other transport options include:

  • Biking is quick and practical, but Austin gets crowded.

  • Walking is great as many venues are close together, although plan your routes and timings in advance, (and don’t forget those comfortable shoes).

  • Rideshares can be slow due to road closures and surge pricing. Consider booking in advance during peak hours.

  • Austin’s MetroRapid bus is a cheap and effective option.

  • SXSW Accessibility Services offer transportation options for attendees with mobility needs.

Two great things if you have the time: $1 bus from the airport to downtown Austin (might be $1.50 now). Also, there is a town 45 minutes away called Lockhart, which is the capital of Texas BBQ and is off the hook. Better than any BBQ in Austin and feels like a trip into another time and era.

Bill Straus, Bridge Independent

4. Making the Most of Events

• Prioritise key sessions. One festival veteran said, 'The best way to avoid FOMO is to pick one must-see event per day and let the rest fall into place.' Several attendees mentioned that 'having a clear plan while leaving space for spontaneity' was the best approach.

• Use the 'rule of two feet'. If a session isn’t valuable, leave and find something better. There’s always another great talk, screening, or event happening nearby.

• Check for encore sessions as some high-demand talks are repeated later in the festival. You can search specifically for them in the schedule (currently empty but they will fill up once the festival kicks off).

• Embrace serendipity. Some of the best experiences happen unexpectedly - stumbling into panels, joining random conversations, or catching unplanned screenings.

• See other people’s films. Many filmmakers stressed that watching others’ work is just as important as showcasing your own. 'The best way to build a network is by supporting your peers,' one person noted.

My advice would be: Seek out & thank the programmers that invited your film to play. Ask them what some of their other favorite films are that they picked to play the fest & why. Go to see as many films as possible other than your own. After the screenings, approach the filmmakers & congratulate them, introduce yourself, and ask them a question about their process.

Chris James Thompson, Good Credit Productions

5. Networking Like a Pro

• Talk to people in lines. Many people said they made lifelong connections just by chatting with those next to them. A number of people said a variation of 'Some of my best collaborations started in a queue'.

• Attend networking events. Official meetups, filmmaker lunches, and informal gatherings are great for expanding your network. If an event requires an RSVP, sign up as soon as possible. Spots go fast.

• Search sites like Eventbrite for possible networking events.

• Know how to introduce yourself. Have a short, clear pitch about who you are and what you do. Keep it concise, engaging, and memorable.

• Use business cards or digital alternatives. QR codes with your contact details, links, or project websites are faster and more effective than a stack of paper cards. If you do go old-school, make sure your card stands out.

• Organise contacts while you still remember them. By the end of the week, your phone will be full of random names and no idea who’s who. Add quick notes about how you met and what you talked about.

• Follow up quickly and personally. A short message within a few days, referencing where you met, can go a long way. Everyone appreciates a “Great to meet you at [x] screening“ or “It was great to chat to you about [y]”. Be that hero.

• Engage with local press. A filmmaker advised “Great national press won’t do much if your screening is half-empty. Local media can help fill seats”.

Talk to the people you're standing in line with, introduce yourself, ask them why they're here, what they like, what they're working on. We've ended up doing business with some of those folks and becoming lifelong friends with others. Nothing like connecting with someone who shares your passion.

Alan Berg, Arts & Labor

6. Maximising the Perks

• Many brand activations and lounges offer free food and drinks. Several filmmakers mentioned that 'you can easily make it through the day without buying food if you plan right' and suggested checking social media for last-minute free events.

• The SXSW registrants lounge is a networking hub with free drinks, quiet seating, and (most importantly) power outlets.

• Recharge zones offer a place to unwind, but they’re exclusive to Platinum badge holders. If you don’t have one, make friends with someone who does.

• The Family Room is at room 405 of the Austin Marriott Downtown available for attendees with kids and includes breastfeeding areas and a fridge.

• Sensory rooms provide a quiet space if you need a break from the crowds. head to room 415B in the Hilton Hotel or room 207 in the JW Marriott.

• Follow SXSW social media channels for last-minute event announcements.

Order food at the Alamo during film screenings for maximum efficiency on days with a packed schedule. Eat local and tip your servers.

Addie Poris, WME

7. Surviving the Chaos

• Pace yourself. Trying to do everything will leave you exhausted by day two. Prioritise key events and be realistic about what you can manage.

• Schedule breaks. Find time for a coffee stop, a quiet lounge, or even a short nap. If you can sneak back to your hotel for 30 minutes of downtime, do it.

• Hydrate constantly. Austin’s dry climate will catch up with you. Carry a refillable water bottle - it’s one of the best things you can bring.

• Sleep when you can. Late nights and early mornings are inevitable. If you can’t get a full night’s sleep, strategic naps are your best friend.

• Have a fallback plan. If a session or screening is full, don’t waste time waiting around - move on to the next best thing. The SXSW app’s event status indicators will help.

Between screenings, press, parties, and meetings, having a film at SXSW is absolutely exhausting. So few filmmakers have the opportunity to screen a film at a festival as amazing as SXSW, make sure to be intentional about savoring the experience.

David Altrogge, Vinegar Hill

8. Beyond SXSW Enjoying Austin

Don’t forget that you’re in one of America’s greatest cities. If you have time - explore!

• Austin’s late-night eats. Several attendees suggested food trucks as the best late-night option, with one filmmaker calling them 'a crucial part of the SXSW experience.'

• The BBQ spots most frequently mentioned by the people I interviewed were

  • Franklin’s BBQ appears to be legendary and well worth the wait.

  • Terry Black’s BBQ is a solid alternative with shorter lines.

  • Lockhart (45 minutes away) is considered the BBQ capital of Texas.

• South Congress is the place to head for vintage shopping, murals, and coffee.

• Zilker Park & Barton Springs is a great spot to relax.

• Enjoy Austin’s live music scene. Many attendees said the music showcases are one of the most unique aspects of SXSW, even for filmmakers. One person noted “I went to see a band on a whim and ended up meeting a composer for my next project”.

Make sure you find a break in your schedule to fit in at least one authentic Texas BBQ experience. Because having an authentic Texas BBQ experience means waiting in line, meeting people in line, and salivating in line. It just enhances SXSW as a whole. It’s a big part of what the festival is about: connecting.

Andrew Carter, Director

SXSW is an intense, immersive experience. Go in with a plan but leave room for spontaneity. Meet people, explore the festival, and enjoy Austin.

No matter what, you’ll walk away with new ideas, fresh inspiration, and valuable connections. Good luck!

So many thanks

This article took a long time to put together, largely because everyone was so generous with their time and thoughts. I reached out to almost 500 people who had projects at SXSW in the past - and the majority replied and engaged me in conversation. I am used to a slightly more cynical response rate!

The overall vibe was one of excitement, due to how much they enjoyed SXSW.

Many asked to be anonymous, but among those who helped and were ok with their name being used were…

Aaron, Adam*, Addie, Alan, Alex*, Alexandra*, Amanda*, Ana, Andrea, Andrew*, Angela, Anna*, Anne, Annie, Arianne*, Ariel, Ashley, Ben*, Benjamin*, Beth, Bianca, Bill, Bob, Brandon, Brian*, Brooke*, Byrke, Capella, Carlos, Carmen*, Carole, Carolina, Carter, Cassandra, Catherine*, Chad, Charlotte, Chris*, Christine*, Clare, Cole, Courtney, Dan*, Daniel*, Danielle*, David*, Derek, Diego, Dixon, Elizabeth*, Emily*, Emma*, Erica*, Erin, Falco, Flavio, Hannah*, Henry, Ian*, Jack, Jacki*, Jake, James*, Jamie, Jason*, Jay, Jeff*, Jenna, Jennifer*, Jennyfer, Jeremy*, Jessica*, Jessie*, Jill, Jim*, Joann, Joanna*, Joe, John, Jon*, Jonathan*, Josh*, Juan, Jude, Julia*, Julian, Justin, Kabeer, Kara*, Karina, Kate*, Katherine, Katie, Kayla*, Kelley, Kent, Kevin, Kristin, Laura*, Lauren*, lda, Leah, Lee*, Lisa*, Liz, Louis, Madeleine, Madison*, Maria*, Mark, Marwan, Matt*, Matthew*, Max*, Melissa, Mia*, Michael*, Michelle, Mike, Morgan*, Nancy, Natacha, Natasha, Neil, Nesma, Nicholas, Nicole*, Omar, Owen, Parker, Pati, Patricia, Paul, Peter, Polaris, Rachel, Rafael, Rebecca, Rob, Robyn, Ross*, Ryan*, Sabrina, Sam*, Samantha, Samuel, Sara*, Sarah*, Scott*, Sean, Sylvia*, Taylor, Thomas, Tim, Timothy, Toby, Todd*, Tomas, Veronica, Wes, Will, and Yana.

The *asterisk denotes more than one person with that name helped.

Thank you all!

I also reached out to the staff at SXSW towards the end of the process to make sure that none of the things I was recommending were different this year. They were very kind and helpful, albeit they did not control the content and this isn’t any kind of sponsorship or partnership.

This year's 'In Competition' line-up was announced last week and features Richard Linklater’s Blue Moon; Rebecca Lenkiewicz’s debut feature Hot Milk, adapted from Deborah Levy’s novel; and Lucile Hadžihalilović’s The Ice Tower, a French fantasy drama starring Marion Cotillard.

I commented to a friend that this year's films feel squarely within what I think of as a 'Berlin film'. They asked me to explain what I meant, and I realised that I was just providing subjective conjecture (yuck!), and so data was needed!

I built two databases -

• "Berlin Film Festival films" - 1,521 feature films which have been nominated for the Silver Bear, Berlin’s main award, between 1951 and 2023.

• "All movies in cinemas" - 17,751 feature films which have grossed at least $1 at the US box office over the past century.

The aim is not to imply one set of films is better or worse than the other, but more to look for patterns among the Berlin films and also to compare them to what the average cinemagoer is offered at the multiplex.

I'm going to look at genres, stories, language, and origin.

Drama rules

Let's start with the obvious. As we see at almost all major film festivals, the vast majority of titles are dramas.

89% of all Berlin films are dramas, compared with 64% of all movies.

Berlin underindexes on the spectacle side of the big screen, as illustrated by the differences within Action (2.3% of Berlin films vs 17.8% of all movies) and Thrillers (6.7% vs 23.2%).

So if Berlin is not looking to see big physical events, where's the conflict?

I'm glad you asked as it leads us on to our next topic - the stories.

The pain is within

I gathered the plots of almost 20k movies and dug into the journeys of the characters.

What became immediately apparent is that Berlin films focus more on internal struggles. This emphasis on introspection often leads to narratives that are about personal growth, moral dilemmas, and the weight of societal expectations.

Movies in the cinema tend to tackle perhaps simpler themes, such as coming of age, revenge and just surviving.

Another way of seeing this is to look at what we could regard as the antagonist in each film. This could be something physical (such as another person) or metaphysical (such as societal norms or expectations).

Again, we see Berlin films over-index towards internal, emotional and metaphysical struggles.

Antagonists are often represented by systems or abstract forces rather than individuals, shifting the narrative focus from personal conflict to broader societal critiques.

Movies in the cinema are more likely to tell tales of people who are under threat from another person, a group of people, or the mob.

When is all this internal struggle taking place?

And when do these struggles take place? Often in the past.

I have a future piece of research coming up which looks at temporal representation in movies so I'll just be brief here. But suffice to say that Berlin films are more likely to take place in the past.

Berlin films are significantly more likely to depict earlier decades, particularly the first half of the 20th century, whereas mainstream cinema focuses more on recent and contemporary settings.

The most common non-contemporaneous time period is the 1940s. The chart below shows the decade Berlin movies have been set in, when it's mentioned in the synopsis and when it's not set in the same decade it competed at the festival.

And how are we expressing our grief?

While mainstream films in US cinemas are almost all in English, Berlin is an international festival in a country where English is not an official language. Despite this, a surprisingly large number of the films are in English.

Over the last 75 years, over a third (37.1%) of Berlin films have been in English, and in recent years it has been edging towards half.

French and German have become more commonplace, while Italian has been in decline.

And who’s behind them?

This is mirrored in the data behind which countries the movies come from. Films have increasingly come from France and Germany.

While fewer nominees have originated in Italy and Sweden.

The 1990s saw an interesting uptick in British and American entries, although that has declined in the decades since.

Note

The data for today's piece came from the Berlin site, Wikipedia, IMDb, OMDb and The-Numbers.

I don't wish to imply homogeneity is automatically a bad thing when it comes to festival selection. These patterns reflect the taste and tone of the festival, as well as their mission to champion certain stories and/or perspectives. They also provide a singular thread, linking together many years' worth of festivals and providing a guiding thread across different years' festivals.

On the one hand, most film festivals disadvantage the horror genre, under-programming it, overlooking quality films, and generally regarding it as less 'worthy' than certain other genres (see proof later in this article).

But at the same time, some festivals embrace horror, showcasing brilliant new films to packed and enthralled audiences, forming a vital part of the thriving horror community.

So whether you're a horror filmmaker wondering where to submit your movie, or a horror fan looking for the best new frightening flicks, it's important you do your research.

I’ve got you covered. When researching my recent Horror Movie Report, I dug deep into the data to work out which film festivals are best for horror filmmakers and fans.

In this article, I'm going to explain my methodology, share which festivals I think deserve the most praise, and reveal what it is in particular that horror filmmaker want from a horror festival.

Strap in!

Horror's challenge with film festivals

Let's state it frankly - most conventional film festivals look down their noses at horror.

Between 2021 and 2023, 12.6% of all movies made were horror, yet horror films represented just 4.2% of movies selected at major film festivals.

Put another way, 83.7% of film festivals under-program horror (i.e., they showcase a smaller percentage of horror films compared to the genre's production levels).

The pie chart below shows the percentage of film festivals by the proportion of their line-ups that are horror movies. Most festivals include very few horror movies, with over half (55.8%) featuring less than 5% horror films. Only a small fraction of festivals focus heavily on horror.

Why festivals matter for horror filmmakers

Film festivals are the lifeblood of indie filmmaking. They’re more than just a place to showcase your work; they’re a vital opportunity to connect with audiences, meet future collaborators, secure distribution deals, and get a spotlight on you and your work.

As horror is treated differently, it’s even more important that filmmakers think carefully about which festivals they will pay to submit to and attend.

Let’s begin by considering the key questions filmmakers need to ask when assessing festivals:

• What are the chances of being selected?

• Is the festival legitimate? (or just a front to attract submission fees from unsuspecting filmmakers)

• Does the film industry pay attention to the festival?

• Does being selected help your career?

• What is the reputation of the festival among filmmakers and audiences?

• How much does it cost?

I built up a database of over 10,000 film festivals (yes, there really are that many!) and gathered data on them. This turned into a mammoth six-month-long journey, but, as the data nerd I am, it was actually quite fun!

In the end, I had data (when available) on the following areas:

• Programming. Films the festivals have previously screened.

• Accessibility. Submission fees, entry methods, and restrictions on applying.

• Filmmaker POV. What previous filmmakers have said about the festivals.

• Audience POV. Conversations and rankings on sites like Reddit and blogs.

• Reputation. Whether the festivals were recognised on sites like IMDb and Wikipedia, and how long the festival has been running.

• Press. Coverage each festival receives in the film industry press like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, and Screen.

• Awards. Being selected or winning certain festivals can make you eligible for further awards, such as the Oscars, BAFTAs, and European Film Awards.

With all these data points in hand, I narrowed down to a list of 1,004 film festivals worth considering for horror. I created an adjustable scoring system to apply different weights to all these data points, giving me a way to compare and rank festivals.

So, which festival is best for horror filmmakers?

As annoying as this may sound, it really does depend on your goals.

Let’s find a few different framings and run the numbers.

First up, overall. When I adjusted the weights to what I thought they should be (i.e., a good balance of all factors), the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) came out top. I personally love TIFF and have had a blast there. It’s the perfect mix of scale (both in terms of number of titles and industry heft) but also lovely, personal, and audience-focused.

Joining TIFF on the podium were FrightFest, Screamfest, and Fantasia. (I have added a longer list of the top horror film festivals at the end of this article).

While TIFF is very supportive of horror, no one would describe it primarily as 'a horror film festival'.

So, with a tweak to the weights to account for the festival's theme, now we see FrightFest take the top spot, followed closely by Screamfest, Fantasia, Toronto After Dark, and Sitges.

Finally, let’s tweak those weights one more time to account for film industry standing. And here we see the industry’s problem with horror come to the fore.

The film industry press does not cover the vast majority of festivals and appears to have the same anti-horror bias we see in festival selection. This means that if you are looking for wider film industry recognition and coverage, you can’t rely on horror-focused festivals.

When you combine all the factors, Cannes reigns supreme. A close second is TIFF, followed by Sundance, Tribeca Film Festival, South by Southwest, and Berlin.

I don’t wish my views to come across as definitive. They are subjective, and as you’ve seen, the weighting applied to the data makes all the difference. If you want to play with the data yourself, head over to HorrorMovieReport.com and grab the Film Pro edition.

What do horror filmmakers praise festivals for?

Once I had my list of horror festivals I was able top track the discourse around them. One of the aspects I thought was rather revealing was what shortlisted filmmakers say about them.

I categorised the praise each festival received, and at the top came ‘Hospitality’, ‘Passion’, and ‘Communication’ - each featuring in around third of the feedback I tracked. (A single piece of feedback could cover multiple topics).

I noticed a few cultural differences:

• German festivals came top for ‘Communication’

• Canadian festivals topped the ‘Organisation’ list

• The best ‘Atmosphere’ was at British festivals

• American festivals came out in front for ‘Networking’ and ‘Support’.

The kinds of things filmmakers were grateful to festival for included:

• Encouragement. Filmmaking can sometimes be a lonely and unrewarding pursuit and so filmmakers deep appreciated festivals recognising their efforts, awarding their work, and providing opportunities to showcase their films.

• Passion. Filmmakers appreciated organisers and staff who demonstrated a genuine passion for film, particularly independent and horror movies.

• Communication. It can be infuriating not to hear from a festival you’ve entered or been selected in. So it’s no surprise that filmmakers were quick to praise the festivals which kept them informed throughout the process, responding promptly, and made them feel valued.

• Community. They appreciated the festivals which fostered a supportive community where filmmakers can connect with each other, and audiences.

• Support. Many pieces of feedback mentioned that the festival went out of their way to solve technical issues or assist with distribution.

• Memorable experiences. Overall, filmmakers loved festivals which provided a positive atmosphere, from events to screenings, making them feel celebrated and keen to return.

Calculate your own horror festival rankings

If you want the full list of festivals, and the chance to apply your own weightings to the ranking, then check out my Horror Movie Report Film Pro edition, which includes:

• The digital version of The Horror Movie Report - the most comprehensive data study of the horror genre ever.

• Full database of 1,004 horror film festivals, allowing you to adjust 45 different weights to generate your own top list of festivals. Or you can filter and browse the data.

• Bonus report: The Business Case for Horror Investment with data, charts, and press clippings to bolster your film business plan.

• Bonus report: Horror Filmmakers' Guide to Film Festivals covering twenty areas on how to get the most out of film festivals as a horror filmmaker.

• All the data and charts used in the report, including a licence to use them in business plans.

Note: The data, spreadsheets, and bonus reports are only part of the 'Film Pro' edition.

My top 25 horror film festivals list

Here is my personal list of the top 25 film festivals for horror filmmakers, based on a balanced weighting.

1. Toronto International Film Festival – September, Canada

2. FrightFest – August, UK

3. Screamfest Horror Film Festival – October, USA

4. Fantasia International Film Festival – July, Canada

5. Bucheon International Fantastic Film Festival – August, South Korea

6. Toronto After Dark Film Festival – October, Canada

7. Sitges Festival Internacional de Cinema Fantàstic de Catalunya – October, Spain

8. Mórbido Mérida – October, Mexico

9. Lund Fantastic Film Festival – October, Sweden

10. Night Visions Film Festival – November, Finland

11. MOTELX - Festival Internacional de Cinema de Terror de Lisboa – January, Portugal

12. Abertoir Horror Festival – November, UK

13. Mostra Internazionale del Film di Fantascienza e del Fantastico – November, Italy

14. Sundance Film Festival – January, USA

15. South By Southwest – March, USA

16. Imagine Film Festival – October, Netherlands

17. Grimmfest – October, UK

18. Brooklyn Horror Film Festival – October, USA

19. Festival de Cannes – May, France

20. Crypticon Seattle Film Festival – May, USA

21. Nevermore Film Festival – February, USA

22. Weekend of Fear – June, Germany

23. Haapsalu Horror and Fantasy Film Festival – April, Estonia

24. Neuchâtel International Fantastic Film Festival – July, Switzerland

25. Panic Fest – April, USA

I have been asked a number of times to combine them in one place, so today, for the first time, I present my collection of very real, very revealing things I have overheard at the Cannes Film Festival.

More serious stuff first

Between earwigging on public conversations, I have also found a bit of time to do some real study. So here is a collection of articles I've written about Cannes, if you're interested in the more serious side of the industry:

• Ultimate tips for attending the Cannes Film Festival

• A data-led analysis on how to survive the Cannes Film Festival

• Cannes Film Festival mysteries explained (via Nicolas Cage)

• The best and worst ever films at Cannes

• Is English becoming the de facto language of Cannes films?

• The experiences of American Pavilion interns at the Cannes Film Festival

• What do Cannes-nominated short films have in common?

• How many Cannes-nominated films get a theatrical release?

• How much does it cost to exhibit at the Cannes Marché?

• What types of films win the Palme d’Or at Cannes?

Ok, now the conversational snippets

One of the features of Cannes is the International Village, where most countries have a tent to promote their country to the industry and also provide a home for native filmmakers.  The UK tent is notorious for housing UK-based filmmakers who spend the whole festival just talking to Brits who live and work in the same town as them.

If you are feeling like you’re missing out on the Cannes experience this year then fear not – I have started to jot down some of the things I’ve overheard said in the UK tent.  I promise these are verbatim conversations by British filmmakers in Cannes…

• “Stick it in a box and people will buy it”
  “Cool, so a physical release on DVD?”
  “No, a metaphorical box”
  

• “I’m doing a private screening this afternoon in my flat. I can see if I can squeeze you in, if you want to come?”
  

• [Two people who have made enthusiastic small talk for about ten minutes – about the weather, parties, films – and then they got onto what they do for a living. It turns out they’re both composers. The disappointment in both of them was palpable and they parted ways soon after]
  

• [Actor showing off about the films he’s been in] “And that film has just won an award at a major festival”
  “Which one?”
  “Best Editor”
  

• “Who’s directing?”
  [Says a name]
  “Great, great, I totally respect him, totally. Would you consider changing to someone else?”
  

• “I love that party. Every year I go and get so much arse”
  

• “I’ve discovered that during Cannes is the worst time in the world to be trying to sell a film”
  

• “Your film is the exact type we finance”
  “So will you fund us?”
  “I’m afraid not”
  

• “And then we discovered that the producer had been lying to us the whole time”
  “So what did you do?”
  “Well, nothing, because to be fair to him we hadn’t really been telling him the truth either. Still, what a bastard!”
  

• “There’s two ways the script could go. Personally, I think the flashbacks slow the film down but we’re happy to do that if the investors want to spend more”
  

• “[Huge Hollywood star] is very interested. In fact, he’s completely ecstatic about the script and his agent said that he’s in as soon as we have the money for his quote”
  

• “There’s a big investor in the background of this one who is completely willing to fund it”
  “So it’s fully funded?”
  “Well, no, he’s wants to get other people to share the opportunity and he’ll be the last in”
  

• “I haven’t actually read the script but I really do think it could be the next ‘The King’s Speech'”
  

• “The good thing is that it’s the first of a planned trilogy”
  

• “We’ve had a breakdown of the special effects and amazingly it came in at just £5 million, which is less than half the total production budget”
  

• It would be good to shoot in Asia so it will instantly have an original look. Or Malta”
  

• “This is going to be a very original Richard Curtis style rom-com”
  

• “It’s set in an ambiguously nowhere town but when you read the script it’s obviously London”
  

• "We think our promo is good as no one has looked too bored when seeing it"
  

• "The soundtrack is incredible so make sure you focus on that when watching the trailer"
  

• "Our budget is [£x]. It’s inflated but not wildly. Just padded"
  

• "What’s your budget?"
  "Yeah, that’s one of our blind spots"
  

• Person 1: "Have you thought about shooting in [COUNTRY]?"
  Person 2: "No, it’s important that we use the authentic location the story actually took place in, and we’ve already secured that"
  Person 1 talks about tax credit in [COUNTRY] for ten minutes
  Person 2: "Um. Ok"
  Meeting ends.
  

• "Your budget seems to have gone up by over 60% from the last time you told me about the project. What accounts for this?"
  "Inflation"
  

• "It’ll be historically accurate but not, you know, too much"
  

• A British filmmaker talking to a French professional. At the end, as they said goodbye the French pro said (in English) "Your use of French is novel".
  The filmmaker Brit-splains what the word ‘novel’ means in English.
  After waiting patiently, the French pro replied "I know".
  

• [Talking about the length of a script]
  Person 1: "How many characters?"
  Person 2: "Oh wow, I dunno. Tens of thousands. I can check"
  Person 1: "…."
  Person 2: "Is word count important?"
  Person 1: "No, how many roles are in the movie?"
  Person 2: "Oh. Two"

Finally, so many of the conversations I heard in Cannes followed this script:

• "Hi"

• "When did you get here?"

• "How long are you here for?"

• "Wet/Sunny, isn’t it?"

• "When do you leave?"

• "And when did you arrive?"

• "Lovely to meet you, let's stay in touch."

That's because it's the start of the annual ten-day film industry gathering in Berlin which is half film festival (the "Berlinale") and half trade show (the "European Film Market" or EFM). 

In a previous article, I looked at the films 'In Competition' over the past six decades of the Berlin Film Festival so today I thought I would focus on the experience of actually attending the festival and market.

The EFM was steadily growing in size each year but was majorly affected by the pandemic. Attendance in 2023 was on par with 2015/16, so it remains to be seen how big the 2024 edition will be.

In order to help those making the trip this year, I interviewed 237 film industry professionals who will be attending the EFM this year and asked for their advice for first-timers to the Berlinale and EFM. Below you will find a collection of tips and recommendations from EFM veterans.

Note: Many of these tips were collected pre-pandemic, but this year I have canvases the opinions of over 100 film industry professionals to ensure I only used the ones still relevant in 2024.

Tip 1: Be organised

A major comment from the respondents was to plan your trip well in advance.  This means knowing who you're going to meet, what you want to see and how you'll achieve your business goals.

• Get there a day or two before the market and find your way to the key points ahead. Take advantage of the first visit "trainings" by the market.  Ask people you meet.

• To be well organized. It is a big event with many options and one should be well organized long time ahead.

• Book tables for lunch, or it can be difficult to get space.

• Keep your meetings short, and try to get a good feel of where your contacts are so you don't waste time on transport.

• Know your goals before attending should it be pitching, selling, buying. Research the people you are meeting and know what they are looking for so you won't be wasting your and their time and book your meetings before arriving in Berlin because you probably won't get many meetings when you are there if not pre-booked.

• Do your research and come prepared - it's stressful and hectic enough as it is.

• Get a badge, you can't do the EFM properly from outside in the cold (literally)

• Plan your schedule in advance, people at the European Film Market are having meetings from the morning until the evening and mostly all of it is pre-booked. Also plan the films you want to go see.

• Plan your meetings with big companies in time - they don't have free time spots left. Especially distributors.

Tip 2: Go for the first weekend

As with most major film festivals, the opening weekend is far busier than the second weekend. This is something which has shown up time after time when I've looked at film festival / market attendance.

The chart is a typical Berlin attendance pattern, with the weekends highlighted in orange.

Tip 3: Wrap up warm

Warm clothing was a frequently-mentioned tip, as was comfortable shoes. The events are more spread out than at some other festivals, so you may be in for a lot of walking.  Often in the rain and more often than not in the cold!

• Dress warmly, get up early (especially if you fancy queueing for free film tickets)

• Pack warm clothes, wear comfy shoes, there is a lot of walking ahead of you!

• Get warm clothes. The freezing wind during Berlinale is a bi...ch.

• Wear great solid warm hiking type shoes...with a good pair of socks....Style is less important than warmth and dryness...in Berlin

• Be prepared for ugly weather and quick weather changes from cold to sunny from rain to snow...

• Wrap up warm, wear comfortable shoes and make sure to leave time for some currywurst.

• Grow a beard, if you can. If you can't.... bring a hat. Berlin is COLD at this time of year.

• Bring waterproof shoes.

• Don't hug and kiss too much, many people have a flu.

Tip 4: Where to go

• 

  If you are a film maker: Go to the Coffee bar area in the Martin Gropius house, and to the lobby in the Hyatt and set up your meetings there

• Acquaint yourself with the MGB, the Hyatt, The Ritz Carlton and The Marriott as these are the principal meeting points for industry professionals.

• Use shuttle, runs really well. You can make it here and there - Marriot, Cinemax and MGB.

• Go to the Media/Creative Europe or Berlinale Talents Stand to orient yourself with the building and stands around. There is more to do than just wander around lost, also the locations are spaced apart and the festival is really, really big.

Tip 5: Network, network, network

Both the festival and the film market are a great place to expand your network and meet new people.

• 

  Don't forget business cards.

• Just hanging around the Martin Gropius Bau is a great way to bump into people.

• Schedule a couple of films/events/talks to attend each day, but leave time for meeting new people and get to know fellow filmmakers. Many filmmakers meet their future co-workers, financiers, etc at festivals.

• Mix film screenings, industry talks and mingles into a nice cocktail as too much of only one ingredient will wear your senses down! Do not hesitate to present yourself to festival programmers and financiers you meet and find out what they think of things (films screened, seminar topics, etc) rather than pitch your own project first thing.

• Don't hassle sales agents - they are there to sell. When they are selling your film in the future you will not want them being hassled by new producers. Say hello by all means but ask if you can meet them in London (if they are London-based), or towards the end of the market when they are less busy. And research who they are - take an interest in what they are selling and have sold.

• For Industry meetings go to the Martin Gropius Bau - it is the best place for networking.

• Walk around the MGB and the Marriott. You will be able to see all the sales agents and see what they are offering. In Berlin, everyone is approachable.

• Don't stay too long at parties and keep it slow on the alcohol: you want to be ready and fit for the next day and nobody wants to having to avoid the drunkard.

• Follow up after the Berlinale!

Tip 6: Buddy up

Many people mentioned the power of finding someone who has been before and asking them for help, certainly in the first few days.  Otherwise, by the time you start to get the hang of it everyone will already be on their way home.

• To check somebody who was there before how the system works

• Find someone to show you around where to find   a) the companies   b) good food

• Talk to people who have been regular visitors - at least for the last three years

• Just hanging out with people who've done it all before is probably the best bet.

Tip 7: Learn how to get tickets to screenings

• 

  The amount of movies screened is overwhelming. Learn what you are really interested in and make sure to get up early to get the tickets you want.

• Once the programme is out you don't have a lot of time to work out your screening schedule, and as screenings sell out quickly, make sure you have other options for the given time slot. You will not get a ticket if screenings overlap, so you can't leave one screening early in order to make the next.

• If you have a ticket you're not going to use, return it. All tickets are issued to your unique ID, so you will not get another ticket for the same film.

• Unless you have a EFM Market Badge (which gives you the benefit of picking up tickets at EFM/Martin Groupius Bau) you should get to the ticket centre in good time before they open - the waiting line will be long, so get there at least one hour before they open. At least. Bring coffee and fill out your ticket request form while you're in line.

• With a market badge you get access to market screenings, which means working out your schedule can be a nightmare. You can get into a screening without a market badge, but you will need an invitation from the distributor/sales agent.

• Admittance to the screenings are strict, so you won't get in unless you have both ticket and badge. Tickets are colour coded to match your accreditation level.

• The EFM is extremely valuable, efficient, comprehensive. Attend as many screenings as possible there and avoid waiting on line to get tickets to "regular" shows.

• If you're from a festival or cinema and have a shitty accreditation (which you will have by default), don't miss your chance to go to the European Film Market (your normal festival badge will get you access, don't worry!) and find out about market screenings of the films you need to see. then go to the sales companies of those films and ask for invitations to market screenings. If you get one, you can actually attend a market screening which will be much more convenient than standing in line at the ticket counter each morning and being frustrated that all tickets to the films you wanted to see are already gone.

• If you want to pick up tickets for the next day, get to the ticket dispensing areas early (8-9am). Also, try to stay around Postdammerplatz for most of your screenings (CinemaxX and CineStar) so that you're not wasting a lot of your time on travel to remote destinations/theaters.

Tip 8: See the city

• 

  Take a map of Berlin

• Use booking.com for your hotel, much cheaper than the hotels EFM suggests.

• Stay not too far from Potsdamer Platz

• Try to also escape from Potsdamer Platz even though most important festival places are in this area. It is not a place that represents Berlin because it is a rather soulless square. Try to get to other city districts like Kreuzberg, Mitte, Schöneberg and Charlottenburg. Try to organize your meetings in those districts, they are all close by.

• Try to have a proper lunch and save money on dinner.

• Keep away from expensive and crowded cafes. Enjoy the small cafes in the premises which are not targeted by the mass.

Tip 9: Have fun!

The consensus seems to be that the Berlin festival and EFM are both very well run.  The only complaint I heard frequently was about the weather, which may be the one thing out of the control of the organisers!

• Be happy and leave your worries back home

• Stay hydrated and don't get hit by a taxi when staring at Berlin Wall stone markings.

• Have a hot chocolate in the Hyatt (memorable experience)

Epilogue

Thank you to all of the people who took the time to share their wisdom.

There will be an online component to the festival and market but an indeterminate number of film makers, film fans and film professionals will be pounding the Croisette in a few weeks.

This prompted a Cannes-bound reader to get in touch, asking if it's true that the best time to attend a film festival is in the opening weekend.

Over the past few years I've run a number of surveys of film festival attendees, collecting tips and tricks to get the most out of festivals. One such question I've asked has been "On which days are you planning to attend?". Using this data, I have put together charts for four of the largest major film festivals, revealing which days are the busiest.

Cannes International Film Festival and Marche du Film

We'll start with the most famous festival and the one which was the catalyst for this article - Cannes.

Over 80% of attendees who responded to my survey said they were planning to attend on the first Saturday and Sunday of the festival. This is in sharp contrast to fewer than 30% on the second Saturday and barely 20% on the second Sunday.

Note: On the charts below I have highlighted the weekdays in blue and the weekends in orange.

Berlin International Film Festival and European Film Market

The pattern for the Berlin International Film Festival is very similar, albeit that the top two days were the first Sunday and the Monday right after, with the first Saturday coming in as the third busiest day of the festival.

Toronto International Film Festival

Toronto had much better attendance on the day before and after the first weekend, but the first weekend was still top choice for most people.

Sundance International Film Festival

Last but by no means least is Sundance, where our pattern abides.

By now you may have spotted a second pattern, namely that festivals tend to start on Wednesdays or Thursdays. This is no doubt connected to the 'first weekend' idea, with festivals wanting a couple of days to ramp up before things get really busy.

Oh, and one last pattern - the second weekend is dead. I have a friend who attended his first Cannes on the second weekend and was confused as to where everyone was! He said it was like a ghost town, despite there officially being three days left on the festival schedule. There were screenings but no parties, no market activity and few attendees left to network with.

Not all attendees are created equal

Before we end, I did want to acknowledge that these charts have treated all festival attendees equally - something the industry absolutely does not do. At almost all film festivals there are be layers of hierarchy, each with differing levels of importance, access and events. Each festival will have a different formula for whom they fete and whom they forget, but among the things which are prized at festivals are:

• Artistic prowess, such as nominated filmmakers or winners of festivals past.

• Industry position, such as being accredited as an Official Buyer at the film market or having produced a film in the past couple of years.

• Deep pockets, either literally paying for expensive passes (the Sundance all-access pass for just the first week will cost you $4,000) or being able to provide funding to films and events.

• Famous faces, with the most famous names having an entirely different festival experience to us civilians.

• Professional press, with such passes normally allowing for extra access but in some cases actually reducing their access to private industry events and previews.

Each of these cohorts may have a slightly different festival schedule. As an example, when I surveyed Cannes attendees, I noticed that film buyers were much more likely to front-load their trip, looking to do business right from day one of the market.

Further reading

If you are planning to attend one of these festivals, they you may find the following articles useful:

• 55 tips for attending the Sundance Film Festival

• Tips for attending the Toronto International Film Festival

• Tips for attending the Berlinale and European Film Market

• Ultimate tips for attending the Cannes Film Festival

• A data-led analysis on how to survive the Cannes Film Festival

Notes

The data for today's piece came from a series of surveys I have run, asking festival attendees about their up-coming trip to each film festival. The Cannes, Berlin and Toronto festivals were in 2016 and Sundance was 2019. These were the years I had the most data for, although the same patterns around found in other years for which I have data.

Epilogue

It's impossible to say for certain if the pattern we've seen today will continue after the pandemic dies down and events return to regular order. My personal feeling is that whatever happens to the size of the attendance the first weekend will continue to be the busiest. This is because (a) film folk are creatures of habit; and (a) the pattern is a function of everyone needing a widely-agreed rule of thumb to ensure they get the most out of their expensive trip.

In order to help those who are attending this year, I reached out to over a thousand past Sundance attendees to build a list of tips for surviving (and thriving) at the Sundance Film Festival.

This year, the festival is being held unusually late, starting on Thursday 24 January and finishing on Sunday 3rd February - only the second ever Sundance that has spilt over into February.

So here we have it. The tips below come from Sundance veterans with a combined total of over 600 trips to the festival.

Prepare, prepare, prepare

It's not a cheap festival

• 

  It is going to be an expensive trip.  Really expensive.  Check out the cost of passes and tickets ahead of time so you're prepared and have budgeted accordingly. Pre-purchased ticket packages cost up to $600 for a book of ten tickets.  You can save money by buying individual tickets for $25 (if they've not sold out), or for $20 via the electronic waiting list system.

• Unlike most film festivals, you don't have to have festival accreditation to enjoy many of the events and screenings on offer (if you're willing to queue).  However, having a pass can help you skip queues and see more.

• Convenience comes at a high price.  Whether it's tickets, passes or accommodation - if you want something to be easy then it's going to be pricey.  For example, an express pass for the first week of the festival will set you back $4,000 per person.  That gets you priority access to all screenings in all theatres for the seven days between 24th and 29th January.  Conversely, an off-peak pass will get you into screenings between 25th January and 3rd February, before 11am and after 10pm. This bargain option is "just" $500.

• A few respondents suggested carrying cash in case you get the chance to buy last-minute tickets, although I can't tell how relevant this advice is in the futuristic, cashless, app-based world of 2019.

It will be cold

• 

  Check the weather each day so that you don't get caught out if it rains, snows or hails.

• Dress in layers, which can keep you warm when outside but which you can strip off when inside.

• You'll need a decent coat, ideally at least knee length.

• Take waterproof boots which don't hurt your feet.  There will be a lot of walking and waiting around in snowy and/or icy conditions. Bonus tip - Ugg boots are not waterproof!

• Bring spare socks in case your feet get wet (or you can help another poor soul who hasn't read these tips and brought appropriate footwear).

• Prioritise comfort over style.  Everyone is battling the cold and no-one expects you to be stylish at the cost of staying alive.

• Bring hand warmers.

• You may end up staying out all day and into the evening so dress accordingly.  Don't count on having time to go back and get changed, even if you're staying somewhere reasonably central.

• It will be cold. Using data from the US government's National Weather Service, I have averaged the temperatures and snow depth over the past five years in nearby Salt Lake City.

These routes are made for walking

It's about the films

• 

  Many attendees say they are not at Sundance for the networking events, preferring to focus on the films.

• There seem to be two distinct tactics for approaching which films to see at Sundance:

  • Be selective.  Scour the guides and websites, plan ahead and aim to see films which are unlikely to make it into cinemas near you later in the year (i.e. the ones without famous people in!)

  • See as many films as you can.  A good tip here is to try to see films in the same (or nearby) venues so as not to waste the time moving between far-distant venues.

• Be flexible enough with your screening schedule that you can respond to breakout films.

• The festival smartphone app is a vital tool for grabbing last-minute tickets, but you must take action the exact second tickets become available due to demand.

• Aim for second screenings, rather than the premiere, to increase your chances of bagging a ticket.

• Midnight screenings are lots of fun.

It's important to be expected

• 

  RSVP for all events you’re invited to as otherwise you could be left out in the cold, literally.

• Turning up without being on the list is not going to work.  You can increase your chances of being on 'the list' by:

  • Talking to the organisation hosting the event before the day.

  • Signing up for the mailing list of companies and brands connected to the festival before the day.

  • Ask around for invites as often people will forward their invites to you.

  • A sneaky search of sites like Eventbrite may reveal additional events to RSVP to.

• Visit the many exhibits, the Music Cafe, New Frontier Expo and the Filmmaker Lodge between screenings.

• You'll be surrounded by some excellent ski slopes so, if that's your thing, take a day to enjoy them.

• When I've run this type of project for other festivals, I always ask for tips on which companies and organisations run the best parties.  I did so this time and the overwhelming answer was - it's not about the parties, it's about the films.

• That said, here are a few of the organisations whose events came highly recommended (in order of frequency of mentions): Cinetic, Blackhouse, Cinereach, IMDb, Netflix, HP, Lyft, HBO and Impact Partners.

Network like your career depends upon it

• 

  If it's your first time attending, try to team up with someone who's been before.  Otherwise, it'll take you a week to get in sync with the festival and by then it'll be too late.  Many respondents mentioned the value of having a connection with a Sundance veteran for everything from getting your bearings to gaining entry to parties.  If you don't know any such people, try to seek them out on your first day.

• Meeting people in queues is one of the joys of Sundance.  Embrace it and make friend with your queue buddies.

• Contact industry people you want to meet, sending them an email to set up a meeting a couple of weeks before the festival. Don't be put off if they are non-committal at first - everyone likes to keep their schedules flexible.

• If you're there to promote a project (or yourself), bring something to give people you meet.  Traditionally, this is a business card or postcard but Sundance rewards creativity so consider something more interesting like stickers, toys or even clothing (budget permitting).

• Talk to the festival volunteers.  They're lovely and also may be able to help you learn about last-minute screenings or exclusive events.

• After the festival, follow up with everyone you met - you never know how you can help each other out in the future.

Manage your energy - electrical, physical and spiritual

• 

  A number of people mentioned that the frenetic nature of most film festivals doesn't gel well with Sundance. Slow travel and waiting around are the order of the day.  Be patient and try not to get stressed.

• Queueing is part of the Sundance experience. Be ready to wait well over an hour in Sundance Industry Office (SIO) queues.

• Carry water and drink it.  Over a quarter of all my respondents mentioned the need to stay hydrated.

• Bring a battery pack, cable and plug for your phone.  With the need to check apps, connect with others and fill times whilst queueing, you're going to need them.

• Most of the food on offer is unhealthy or in limited supply, so bring snacks.

• Give yourself some time to sit, be calm and focus on what's next.   This could be a sitdown meal or just a cup of coffee.

• Sleep is important, especially in the first few nights.  If you neglect this, you may find you get sick and ruin the latter part of your trip.

• Take plenty of tissues and hand sanitizer to stave off the bugs which prey on tired, dehydrated, cold festival-goers.

• Be kind, be patient, be compassionate.  Everyone is working hard and battling many of the same things as you. Be ready to lend a hand to a stranger in need and don't be afraid to ask the same of others.

Epilogue

I'll be at Sundance for a few days, launching a new report.  We were given access to over 12,000 feature film screenplays along with the scores they got from professional script readers.

The end result is a lengthy investigation into what factors correlate with success for scripts and tips for screenwriters on how to impress these all-important gatekeepers.

I will be publishing the full report for free here on my blog, so stay tuned...

So I thought I'd take a quick look at the festival and its films.

The London Film Festival by numbers

Last year, the London Film Festival screened to a total audience of 184,000 people, making it the UK's largest film festival by a big margin. 

And it's growing; the 2016 attendance figure is 70% higher than a decade ago.

Note: I could not find the figures for 2002 and 2005 but the festival did run.

Good value

One possible reason for this large attendance is that tickets compare favourably with average cinema ticket prices in London.  A few years ago, I looked at the average price of cinema tickets in London and an off-peak festival ticket is actually lower than the comparable off-peak average (£9.00 for the festival and £10.05 normally).

That's not to say that all festival tickets are cheap. If you want to see a festival screening at the Embankment Garden Cinema with hospitality at the Savoy Hotel then you'll have to shell out £354 per ticket.  This includes a "premium" ticket, champagne, dinner and a chance to walk the red carpet with the cast and crew.

Drama queens

Almost nine out of ten films nominated for the London Film Festival 'Best Film' award is a drama.  By using IMDb's genre classification (where each film can have up to three genres), we can see that the second most popular genre is Thriller, accounting for 14% of the films.

BFI Favouritism?

The BFI owns and runs the festival and it's an interesting quirk of the data that, until very recently, films with BFI funding seemed to have a much easier time gaining 'Best Film' nominations than most.

Between 2011 and 2015, the BFI provided some sort of funding towards 9% of the films shot in the UK.  Over this same period, 59% of the British films nominated for Best Film at the London Film Festival had received some BFI funding.  One possible argument for why BFI films do so well at the BFI London Film Festival could be that the BFI is good at identifying and backing quality films.  While this is certainly true overall, it doesn't seem to be enough to explain the full trend. 

Of the Best Film nominees, the average IMDb user scores for BFI-backed nominees is markedly lower than nominees who didn't receive BFI backing.  This could suggest that when a film receives BFI funding, it has an easier time getting nominated at the BFI London Film Festival.

It's worth noting that we're talking about a small number of films and that none of the Best Film nominees in either 2016 or 2017 had BFI funding. This finding could also theoretically be caused by the people awarding BFI money and the people selecting LFF films having the exact same creative tastes - meaning that they independently favour the same films.

Notes

The data for today's piece came from a large variety of sources.  The BFI don't publish easy tables or charts on the festival's numbers so I had to crib much of it from old press releases and annual reports. 

The attendance figures for other festivals was taken from their own press releases and websites so we can't know how accurate they are.  Some festivals didn't say which year their figure related to but when there were multiple years, I opted for the 2016 figure.

It covered the emergence of online submission service Withoutabox, how the industry fell in love with Withoutabox, how it then fell out love thanks to poor service and monopolistic practices (due to their all-powerful patent) and finally the emergence of a rival, FilmFreeway.

If you've not read the piece then I recommend you do now as (a) it's quite an entertaining, shocking story and (b) it will provide context for today's article. A year later, I thought I'd check in and see what's changed.  I spoke to Withoutabox, FilmFreeway and senior people within major film festivals.  

Throughout the article, I have included quotes from the official spokespeople for Withoutabox (see blue sections) and FilmFreeway (in green).  All of the festival staff I spoke to wanted to remain anonymous, which shows how touchy some of these topics are.

I'm going to split this into the good, the bad and the ugly.  Let's start on a positive note...

The good

I tossed a coin and Withoutabox won, so let's look at their new features first. Withoutabox's improvements and additions

Withoutabox is owned by IMDb, which is in turn owned by Amazon.  Hence it makes sense for Withoutabox to start taking advantage of the technology their parent company has developed. Festival judges can watch submissions on whatever device they can connect to an Amazon Fire stick, including large home TV screens.  They will gain access to all of the submissions assigned to them, be able to watch them in HD, rate the films and make recommendations of which films should progress to the next judging round - all from within the app.  This data is then accessible in real-time by the festival admins from the Withoutabox site.

One festival using the app is Sundance, and a senior manager at the festival said of it:

Withoutabox’s Festival Judging app is a game-changer for festivals. To pour your heart and soul into a film only to have festivals watch it on a laptop has always been a concern for our applicants. Now we can easily view them on larger screens in HD, which is more in line with how filmmakers want us to experience their work.

A common complaint of Withoutabox in the past was their poor submission system, which appeared to be running on the same basic code created in 2000 when Withoutabox first launched.  Over the past few years, Withoutabox started to address this via a number of improvements, including:

• A redesigned website with new project pages. Withoutabox calls them "more attractive and easier to evaluate" and they have improved integration with Withoutabox's HD online screeners.

• Withoutabox now provides free HD online screeners up to 10Gb (they previously charged filmmakers $2.95 per festival submission)

• Or filmmakers can choose to submit their film via a Vimeo link.

• Their festival search function has been enhanced, including filters for deadlines and price.

• Filmmakers using Withoutabox can automatically create a title page for their film on IMDb.

Withoutabox says of its latest innovations:

We have been very focused on continuing to enhance the Withoutabox experience for film festivals and filmmakers, guided by their feedback... In terms of where we are headed in the future, we will continue to listen to and innovate on behalf of our film festival and filmmaker customers

FilmFreeway's improvements and additions

Now let's turn to the new features on FilmFreeway. Their biggest innovation over the past year has been the addition of a ticketing system. Festivals can sell tickets to their events from their listings page. The fees for selling a $25 ticket are just $2.24 and the system is free for events which do not charge for admission.  Once attendees have purchased tickets, festivals are able to manage communication and issue digital tickets.  FilmFreeway says:

We built the best ticketing solution in the industry and we priced it cheaper than industry leader Eventbrite. It's only been live a few weeks and it's already being widely adopted by festivals. Basically, we created a one-stop-shop with everything a festival needs to accept submissions, sell tickets, promote and manage their events, all at the lowest prices in the industry

Other recent improvements and additions to the FilmFreeway platform include:

• New website features such as photos albums, a filmmaker dashboard, a notification centre and advanced search tools.

• Public profiles and judging forms can now be customised

• Non-public listings allow your festival to not appear in the search listings and only users with the exact URL can reach the page.

• Festivals have more control over eligibility, allowing them to refuse submissions that are too long (in either minutes or pages) or because of other factors such as project origin, student status, etc.

• A 'Laurel Creation Tool', which create images of laurels for your festival.

The result of these changes 

Neither company is keen to share private data on the exact number of festivals they host, or the value of their submissions.  However, we can use data from Alexa to get an indication of web traffic.  The top website in the world (currently Google.com) receives a rank of 1.  

FilmFreeway seems to be defending its recently-won position as the most popular film festival submission platform, with a rank of 21,037 versus Withoutabox's 51,193.

However, web traffic is not the only way to judge who's on top in the battle.  If we focus on the festivals using each platform, there are signs that Withoutabox's recent efforts are paying off.

Prior to 2014, Withoutabox were the only major submissions platform and so hosted almost all of the world's major films festivals.  However, once FilmFreeway started to get known, many festivals moved away from Withoutabox (See here for more details on this shift).  

Three years after FilmFreeway launched, we're starting to see big festivals return to Withoutabox.  Not only that, but an increasing number of festivals are exclusive to Withoutabox, including Sundance, Melbourne, Stockholm, Toronto, Hamptons, Santa Barbara, Aspen and Slamdance.

The bad

So far, we've addressed the public side of this battle - the changes that are visual to filmmakers.  

However, during the course of my research, I have discovered that there's a darker, secret side to this conflict.  It always seemed strange to me that Amazon was quietly allowing one of its companies to lose market dominance, considering just how aggressively competitive Amazon typically is.  

Well, not anymore. It turns out that Withoutabox are paying some festivals to use their service.  In some cases, very large sums of money. I have now spoken to a number of people who are right at the coalface of such deals, and I have seen enough documents to be confident it is a major part of Withoutabox's current strategy.  

What I've gathered is that a number of major festivals have signed multi-year exclusivity deals with Withoutabox in return for:

• Cash payments.  This is referred to as "sponsorship".  All were in the tens of thousands of dollars per year. I am not going to list actual amounts here in case that reveals which festivals shared this info with me.  Taken together, the festivals I spoke to were offered well over half a million dollars.

• A much lower commission rate.  The standard fee is 8.5% of the amount paid by the filmmakers, but festivals agreeing to an exclusive deal only pay 4%

• Advertising on IMDb.  Most festivals were each offered over $100,000 of advertising on IMDb.com.

• Free marketing to filmmakers via Withoutabox, including their "Solo Spotlight Blast Package", "two-week banner adverts" and "topline mentions", together worth over $3,000.

• IMDbPro coverage of the festival. This includes pinning articles to the IMDb homepage during the festival (so long as the article was written by one of the 151 IMDb news desk partners) and coverage in IMDb's Festival Central section which is pushed out to IMDb's social feeds (3.6 million followers on Twitter and 7 million on Facebook).

• Amazon Fire Sticks

• IMDbPro accounts

I can't be sure which of Withoutabox's exclusive festivals received financial inducements to be exclusive, but my guess would be... all of them.  My reasoning for this assumption is thus:

• Outside of such a deal, there is very little benefit to being exclusive to either platform.  The added work of using two platforms over one is massively outweighed by the increased number of submissions and attention you can expect.  Both systems allow for the easy export of data and so it not hard to mix submissions from different platforms.

• FilmFreeway is more popular with film festival organisers. In my anonymous survey last year, I asked film festival organisers to rate each platform out of ten:  FilmFreeway received an average of 8.6, while Withoutabox scored just 5.6

• And with filmmakers. As we saw from the Alexa data, FilmFreeway has the larger number of filmmakers, and in the conversations I've had with organisers of festivals that use both platforms, all said that FilmFreeway provided a higher number of submissions, compared to Withoutabox.

• I've not spoken to an exclusive festival that wasn't paid. Every major festival I was able to connect with which uses Withoutabox exclusively either told me outright (or strongly indicated) that they were receiving financial payments from Withoutabox.  To be clear, I have not managed to connect with every festival, so it's certainly possible that my research has missed something. But at this stage, this seems unlikely.

I'm not making a case for FilmFreeway, nor suggesting anyone should use it.  I'm just pointing out that it seems implausible that a major festival would voluntarily choose to use just one platform exclusively unless they were induced to do so with a pretty attractive offer.

(Just as an aside, another reason a festival may choose to use one platform exclusively is if they had has a particularly bad experience with the other in the past.  For example, in 2015 HBO used Withoutabox for their HBOAccess Writing Fellowship competition. Unfortunately, the site crashed due to the number of submissions, and so HBO now uses FilmFreeway exclusively. But this is a rare and unusual case).

Everyone involved was very worried about talking openly about these deals, partly because of non-disclosure clauses in the deals and because they fear how Withoutabox may react if they knew they'd spoken out.  

I also picked up a hint of shame from a few of them, as it's clearly not in the best interests of the filmmakers they receive submissions from.  They mentioned how most festivals do not make much money and are run for the community, not for profit.  So when they are offered deals that can dramatically help their bottom line (and therefore increases their chances of surviving for another year) they take them.

I also spoke to festival organisers who were approached and rejected the offer.  Here's what one such organiser said when I asked if they had been approached by Withoutabox with a financial offer for exclusivity:

They have indeed and we said no. It's very wrong. [Withoutabox] have no idea about the value of non-exclusivity, and FilmFreeway is now 80% of our income so [Withoutabox] could never afford to replace our income.

I asked spokespeople from each of the two platforms about exclusivity deals. Withoutabox said:

As I’m sure you can appreciate, we don’t disclose the details of our business relationships with filmmakers or film festivals. Many festivals, including The Sundance Film Festival and The Toronto International Film Festival, have exclusively relied on Withoutabox to manage their film festival submissions for many years (and continue to do so). We do not share any additional specifics

FilmFreeway said:

FilmFreeway never requires exclusivity. We believe that we can earn and retain the business of film festivals based on the world-class quality of our product and customer service.  We do offer free marketing and special discounted commission rates for festivals that choose to use FilmFreeway exclusively.  We actually like it when festivals use FilmFreeway in conjunction with Withoutabox because nothing better illustrates the advantages of FilmFreeway when directly contrasted with Withoutabox. Festivals that use both platforms simultaneously report as many as 5 times the entries with FilmFreeway as well as a drastically better experience in ease of use, submission quality, effectiveness of marketing, and customer support

The ugly

The battle between Withoutabox and FilmFreeway is getting more intense, so perhaps it's not surprising that the rhetoric is heating up.  The FilmFreeway team have always been ready to speak their minds and often taunt Withoutabox on Twitter.  Below are just a few of their missives:

Withoutabox's last tweet was on March 6, 2013 (over 16 months ago). Looks like they've stopped caring altogether. That's okay... we do :)

— FilmFreeway (@FilmFreeway) July 17, 2014

Withoutabox, your new design looks oddly familiar ;) But if you truly want to improve, why not make your site FREE like FilmFreeway? — FilmFreeway (@FilmFreeway) June 29, 2015

This filmmaker submitted a support request to Withoutabox's "Help Desk." We feel you, buddy. We feel you ;) pic.twitter.com/GsEKWLc2Tb

— FilmFreeway (@FilmFreeway) March 10, 2015

How to Win the War on Drugs: 1. Legalize all drugs. 2. Require all drugs be purchased through Withoutabox customer service. Happy Friday! — FilmFreeway (@FilmFreeway) April 17, 2015

And when one of the original founders of Withoutabox (who has since left the business) contacted FilmFreeway, they posted a copy of the email chain.

CHECK THIS: The founder/CEO of Withoutabox tried to get FilmFreeway to partner up. Um, yeah, no thanks. We're good :) pic.twitter.com/chijDG3hqN

— FilmFreeway (@FilmFreeway) 20 November 2014

With this in mind, I'm sure you're keen to hear what they have to say about the emergence of Withoutabox's under-the-table deals to festivals.  So was I, and when I asked them, they did not disappoint:

Of course, if you can't compete by improving your product, I guess your only option is to bribe customers into using your site.

The trouble with that strategy is first; it's completely unsustainable, and second; many festivals are reporting that they receive more than 5 times the submissions via FilmFreeway than they did with Withoutabox.

So, fortunately for us, in most cases, even cash bribes aren’t enough to convince them to leave. And when you can't even pay festivals to come back to your service, you really ought to rethink your entire strategy and whether or you're offering any value for festivals and submitters, to begin with. The key difference between FilmFreeway and Withoutabox is that FilmFreeway never, ever stops improving.

We have added more new features in just the last year, after we were already established as #1, than Withoutabox has in 17 years. In fact, Withoutabox has remained virtually unchanged in all that time. We sometimes wonder if they even care.

Unfortunately for them, as we've seen with Blockbuster and MySpace, failure to innovate and improve on an ongoing and consistent basis is a recipe for obsolescence and then extinction. The Internet has no mercy for status quo

Yikes, fighting talk! Withoutabox provided much more measured and corporate answers to my questions and declined to discuss the hidden payments and deals.  However, they did say

While we don’t disclose any details, we are pleased that so many film festivals and filmmakers are continuing to utilize and give us positive feedback on our service. We are proud to work with The Sundance Film Festival, the Toronto International Film Festival, Seattle International Film Festival, Slamdance and many more of the world’s most prestigious established and emerging film festivals

So there you have it - a year on from my big breakdown of the battle and things are as heated as ever.

Notes

I'm very grateful to the spokespeople of both Withoutabox and FilmFreeway for their willingness to answer questions on the record.  I'm also indebted to the film festival personnel who spoke to me off the record to let me know what's happening with their festival.

For the sake of clarity, I should repeat that I have not received any kind of benefit or inducement from any company or festival.  I agreed to give Withoutabox and FilmFreeway advance sight of this article in order to correct errors but I alone have sole control over what I publish.  I am trying hard to retain my neutrality in this increasingly bitter battle!

Epilogue

I suspect this is going to be a story that runs and runs.  After reading my article last year you could be forgiven for thinking that Withoutabox's owners (IMDb / Amazon) had given up on the platform.  It seems as if no money was being spent on developing the service or the platform and they were simply squeezing out everything they could from their fast-expiring patent.  

However, it's now clear to see that either this was wrong, or that Withoutabox has woken up and is starting to fight for market position. If you have a view on this situation, then please do leave a comment in the section below. If you would rather speak to me privately, then please do drop me a line.

I'm very grateful to Elliot Grove for entertaining my crazy request and then for giving me unrestricted access to the festival's books and accounts.  It's been fascinating to learn how the festival functions, and I hope you find it as interesting as I have.

The Raindance Film Festival in a nutshell

The Raindance organization was founded by Elliot Grove in 1993 to support and train the UK independent film sector, with the festival being launched a year later.  The first festival featured the world premiere of 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?' and in its second year they presented the UK premiere of 'Pulp Fiction'.

Since 2012, winner short films at the Raindance Film Festival are automatically eligible to be nominated for the Academy Awards (i.e. this puts the filmmaker on the first rung of a long ladder to getting a coveted Oscar).

The headline figures

Elliot gave me a cache of documents and access to online accounts and using that I am able to report on a number of aspects of the festival.  Later in the article I look at how some elements have changed over the past decade or so, but first I want to give you a complete breakdown of the accounts for a single year of the festival.  The 2016 festival hasn't happened yet, and the 2015 accounts seem to be still in process, so the most recent year for which I have full and complete figures is 2014.

Film festivals are rarely, if ever, run as purely commercial, profit-driven events and my 2013 film festival study showed that just 3% claim to be making a "steady profit". Therefore, I'm pleased to say that the 2014 Raindance Film Festival made a profit!  Of £19.17.

The total income the festival received came to £300,492...

• Submissions = £107,000

• Box office = £61,075

• Industry & Trade sponsorship = £57,186

• VAT rebate = £31,959

• Cultural Partnerships = £16,420

• Passes = £14,997

• Corporate Sponsorship = £9,150

• Party tickets = £2,335

• Merchandise Sales = £370

• Total income = £300,492

Their costs came to a very similar figure of £300,473...

• Staff = £108,719

• Events and Venues = £93,839

• Office overheads = £22,795

• Marketing = £21,792

• Hospitality = £21,213

• PR = £20,000

• Miscellaneous = £5,301

• Print traffic = £4,957

• Outdoor advertising = £1,260

• Screening Fees = £597

• Total costs = £300,473

Breaking down the income

Just over a third of the festival's income comes from submission fees, which are paid by filmmakers when they enter their film for consideration.  Submissions to the Raindance Film Festival have been rising steadily in recent years, and in 2014 they received 3,170 short films, 851 feature films and 122 music videos.

Income from submission fees

For most of the past decade the Raindance Film Festival has used Withoutabox as their sole submission platform, although in 2015 they added the ability for filmmakers to use FilmFreeway to submit. The Raindance team gave me login access to both accounts, meaning I was able to analyse all of their online submissions between 2002 and 2015 (I did not look at 2016 as the season is still open for submissions).

Over the past twelve years, 57.1% of their submission income has come from short films, 41.2% from feature films and the remaining 1.7% from other film projects, such as music videos.

Most festivals charge different submission costs based on the date filmmakers submit their films, and the Raindance Film Festival is no exception.  The cheapest prices apply to the earliest submissions, with the final 'late deadline' prices normally being significantly higher.  For example, if you wished to submit your feature film to this year's Raindance Film Festival then if you did so before 22nd April then you would be charged £50 on Withoutabox and $85 on FilmFreeway.  However, if you wait until the very last minute then you will have to pay £145 on Withoutabox (latest deadline is 17th June) and $155 on FilmFreeway (latest deadline is 10th June).

In addition, each year the Raindance team review their submission fee structure.  Using the data from twelve years of submissions, we can look at the average amount actually paid by filmmakers each year. The average cost of a submission has fluctuated significantly over the years, including a policy change in 2011 to reduce the cost for submissions (in 2010 the average feature cost £93 to submit whereas in 2011 the average was just £45).  This no doubt played a role in the dramatic rise in submission numbers since 2011.

Only last week, MovieMaker magazine included the Raindance Film Festival as one of their 'Festivals Worth The Entry Fee'.

So far we've been talking about the festival's gross income, from which we need to deduct submission platform fees and then any taxes, such as VAT.  Over the years, Withoutabox has charged a number of different commission fees to film festivals, with some being as high as 18%  However, using the gross and net figures we can see that the Raindance Film Festival paid an average of 11.5% between 2006 and 2015.   In 2006 the Withoutabox fee was 10.1% of gross income, and in 2015 it was 12.0%.  The effective fee charged by FilmFreeway in 2015 was slightly lower, at 9.0%.

Income from screenings, parties and passes

The core of any film festival is the screening of new, undiscovered films to a paying audience.  The 2014 Raindance Film Festival took place over 12 days (Wednesday 24th September to Sunday 5th October, inclusive) and screenings were held on all but the first day.

• 25/09/2014 - 911 tickets sold, gross box office = £5,422

• 26/09/2014 - 656 tickets sold, gross box office = £3,016

• 27/09/2014 - 1,152 tickets sold, gross box office = £5,412

• 28/09/2014 - 1,279 tickets sold, gross box office = £6,957

• 29/09/2014 - 862 tickets sold, gross box office = £4,091

• 30/09/2014 - 907 tickets sold, gross box office = £4,353

• 01/10/2014 - 823 tickets sold, gross box office = £3,872

• 02/10/2014 - 862 tickets sold, gross box office = £5,022

• 03/10/2014 - 758 tickets sold, gross box office = £5,033

• 04/10/2014 - 846 tickets sold, gross box office = £6,762

• 05/10/2014 - 598 tickets sold, gross box office = £5,010

• Total gross box office from public screenings = £54,950 from 9,654 tickets sold

In addition, the festival held Opening and Closing Night Galas, netting £5,100 and £1,025 respectively and bringing the total box office to £61,075.

The 2014 box office was the highest in the festival's history (I don't have figures for 2015).

The figures above come from the sales of tickets on an individual basis, but the festival also sold 'passes' which allowed access to all screenings.  The top pass was the 'Patron Pass' which cost £250 and gave the owner access to all Galas, film screenings, workshops, events, the award ceremony, they received a name check in the festival catalogue and had a behind-the-scenes tour of the festival from Elliot Grove.  There were three other types of passes, and each had discounts for members, seniors and students (see here for a breakdown).  The totals were as follows...

• Patron Pass - 17 sold, netting £4,250

• Full Festival Pass - 85 sold, netting £7,775

• Event Pass - 40 sold, netting £1,744

• Web Pass - 39 sold, netting £1,228

• In total, 181 passes were sold, netting £14,997

When we combine the tickets sold and the entries via passes, we can see that the 2014 festival had an attendance of 14,166 (10,429 from film screenings and 3,737 from events).  This means that the 2014 attendance figures were more than double those of the 2010 festival.

Sponsorship and industry support

The 2014 Raindance Film Festival raised £82,756 from corporate, trade, industry sponsorship and cultural partnerships.  This 2014 sponsorship income came from just 15 bodies, including Nikon, Viewster, Daily Motion and York University.  The largest of these was £20,000 awarded by the BFI from their 'Audience Fund'.  (This figure was halved in 2015 and there are currently no plans for BFI funding for the 2016 festival).

Their cultural partnerships included deals with Instituto Cervantes, Embassy of Israel, Italian Cultural Institute, Polish Institute, Sasakawa Foundation.  In addition, the European Commission provided just over £10,000.

This sponsorship income accounted for 27.5% of festival revenue, much less than the industry average of 43.7%.  This appear to be disproportionately small due to the Raindance festival's high percentage of income from box office receipts.  Raindance puts on many film screenings and they are relatively well attended by the paying public, possibly providing them better protection from every film festival's fear of losing one or two large sponsors, leading to the festival having to be cancelled.

The biggest cost - the festival staff

Running a festival is a huge endeavour, and one which lasts throughout the year.  Clearly the busiest times are in the weeks leading up to and during the festival, however the work never seems to stop.

For example, let's look at the task of creating the festival's schedule of films. Gathering and reviewing submissions begins almost as soon as the previous festival ends.  Submissions are accepted from early November, with the first deadline (the 'Earlybird') in late April.  Successive deadlines come and go, with the final late deadline coming in mid-June.  During this time, the submissions team are watching and reviewing films in order to make their final selections.  The short films need to be brought together into curated programmes, such as "Comedy Screen", "New Waves" and "Desolation Ventures". The lucky shortlisted filmmakers are informed on 31st August and then the challenge becomes one of gathering all the screening copies for the cinemas. And once they have all played to cinema audiences... it all begins again.

Since 2002, Raindance reviewers have watched 13,234 hours’ worth of movies and for the 2014 festival they had to review 124,898 minutes of footage (i.e. almost three months’ worth, if watched back-to-back).  Using the 2014 net submission income, it works out as 87p per minute of films submitted.

The festival paid 21 members of staff, with a combined wage bill of £108,719.  By contrast, the Sundance Film Festival employed ten times as many people in 2013 (232 staff members) whilst only having just over four times as many people attending the festival (attendance of 45,947, versus Raindance's 10,429).  Elliot Grove was not paid from festival income (although I'm sure he earns something from other Raindance enterprises).  In addition to the paid staff, the festival is supported by around 60 volunteers (Elliot tells me that they receive over 400 volunteer applications each year).

The other costs (or How to Spend £300,000 in Twelve Days)

Some of the other costs included...

As we can see, the festival is a large, complex operation, turning over nearly a third of a million pounds every year.  What's not tracked in the numbers above are the time, energy and passion given by everyone involved.  In addition, it's not possible to capture just how much fun it is to attend such a vibrant festival of film.

If you want to see for yourself, the 2016 Raindance Film Festival takes place 21st September to 2nd October 2016.  (Oh, and the current 2016 festival budget predicts it'll cost £378,721, so consider buying a ticket / pass / mug and helping the team out)

Bonus Raindance Film Festival facts!

While going through the festival's accounts and submission records, I realised that there were a load of smaller, tangential things I could research and report on.  Therefore, below there are some random titbits from the past twelve years of the Raindance Film Festival...

Bonus fact #1: The same themes keep cropping up in submitted films

Using the film's loglines (nearly a million words in total), we can see the most popular themes are youth, love and life.  The word cloud below shows the most common words, with the most frequently-used words appearing the largest.

Bonus fact #2: The average filmmaker was 31 years old

Withoutabox doesn't ask all filmmakers to list their date of birth, but FilmFreeway does.  Therefore, by using a sample of the 1,507 people for whom we have a date of birth in 2015 and 2016, we can look at how old the filmmakers were at the moment they submitted their film for consideration.

The median age was just over 31 years old.  1.4% were under twenty years old, 42.6% were in their twenties, 33.2% were in their thirties, 15.2% were in their forties and the 'over forties' accounted for 7.6% of filmmakers.

Based on Raindance's own research, the festival audience in 2012 was aged 11% 18-24 years old, 43% 25-34 years old, 42% 35-55 years old and 4% were aged over 55.

Bonus fact #3: Digital more popular than tape, but only very recently

The shooting formats of the films submitted to the Raindance Film Festival are a mirror of changing film technology over the past decade. It wasn't until 2015 that the festival saw more submissions shot digitally than on tape.  The percentage of films shot on film has drastically dropped, from close to 44% in 2003 down to just 3.5% in 2015.

Note: Some films mix shooting formats, hence why the totals creep past 100%.

Between 2003 and 2007, MiniDV was the most common format used, and was eventually replaced by HDV at the top spot.  In 2003, 10% of films were shot on BetaSP.

Bonus fact#4: Films were submitted from 155 countries

31.6% of films submitted to the Raindance Film Festival are from America, followed closely behind by films from the UK (26.6%).  Between 2002 and 2015, the Raindance Film Festival received films from 155 countries, including one film from each of the following countries: Panama, Cayman Islands, Faroe Islands, Burkina Faso, Kyrgyzstan, Kurdistan, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Mongolia, Angola, Laos, Tunisia, Zambia, Aruba, Cote d Ivoire, Myanmar, Botswana, Tuvalu, Greenland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Benin, Uganda, Paraguay, Martinique, Barbados, Jamaica, Gibraltar, Swaziland and Timor-Leste.

In the early days of the festival, a far higher percentage of submissions came from American filmmakers.

Bonus Fact #5: The average short is 810 seconds long

The median running time of the short films was 13 minutes and 30 seconds, with half of all short films running between 7 and 15 minutes long.

Sadly, the reporting on the features is a little too inconsistent to be able to perform the same analysis.

Epilogue

I'm very grateful to Elliot Grove for so generously opening up the archives of the Raindance Film Festival.  He gave me complete, unrestricted access to the data and didn't prevent me from reporting on any aspect of the festival.

His contribution to independent film in the UK has been immense and spanned almost a quarter of a century, so it's nice to see that he continues to be open to new ways to help filmmakers.  In our conversation, I asked him if he had any idea how large the festival would become when he set it up and he said...

I knew it was hard. I naively didn't realise just how hard. Had I realised I might not have done it.

I think all filmmakers can relate to that!  Surely this applies anything worth doing in the film industry, no matter if you're making movies, running festivals or sitting in cheap seats munching popcorn.

If you've found this article useful and/or enjoyable, then please support the 2016 Raindance Film Festival by buying a pass.  Best of all, you can currently grab them for the earlybird price, saving you 20%.  Just visit raindancefestival.org/register-now

'Film festival' means different things to different people. Film audiences see it as a chance to view new and exciting work from all over the world, way before it will be on general release and sometimes there are chances to see films that won't ever be released. For filmmakers, festivals are a way of showing your work, gaining recognition and connecting with other filmmakers. Film business professionals often use film festivals as a place to network, learn and find new potential films or partners to do business with.

Some film festivals are very small, running for a day or two and showing films for free to small audiences, while others have grown into huge operations, attracting tens of thousands of people. When I last studied the topic three years ago, I found 9,706 film festivals which had run at least once between 1998 and 2013, of which 2,954 had run in the previous two years. I looked at their location, dates, rules, funding, fees and shared the views of 523 film festival directors.  

Since then, I have sporadically looked at individual film festivals and awards such as Cannes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), Berlin (1, 2), London, the Oscars and the BIFAs, but I have not revisited at the overall state of film festivals.  

I decided to check in and see if anything had changed since the study and, wow, things have really changed in just a few years.

How festivals find their films

An essential part of running a film festival is being able to attract new films to screen each year.  The more prestigious your festival is, the more filmmakers will submit their film.  In my 2013 study, I found that around two thirds of festivals charge filmmakers a submission fee when they send their film in to be considered.  These fees offset the cost of reviewing films, and for many festivals are an essential part of their economic survival.

As you may expect, almost all submissions are currently made online, and it's here that our dramatic tale takes place. Twenty years ago, all submissions were handled offline and physically. This was a frustrating, slow and expensive process.

Withoutabox to the rescue!

And then, in 2000, along came Withoutabox. *insert angelic chorus*  Withoutabox was such a breath of fresh air for filmmakers as they solved many of the biggest problems in making multiple submissions to film festivals....

• You could add your film's details to the site just once, no matter how many festivals you wanted to enter.

• You could then search, filter and select film festivals from all over the world from your computer.

• Their site would automatically tell you if your film was eligible for each festival strand by comparing the festival criteria to the details of your film.

• Once selected, you could apply and pay for submission from the same site, at once, in your own currency.  You would then send off the VHS (later the DVD) copy of your film to the festival(s) with just the Withoutabox reference (no paper forms, etc).

• Finally, the festival would display when your film had been received, when it was 'in the system' and the final outcome of your submission.

In the modern world, this is the kind of service we expect from all submission sites, but try to think back to what filmmakers faced pre-2000 and you can appreciate how revolutionary Withoutabox was.  In fact, they were so new that they filed for a patent.  I doubt if many users even knew that Withoutabox had a patent, but it was this granting of a patent in 2004 that would go on to cause so much pain for the film festival world.

By 2008, Withoutabox had grown to become a major force, with 125,000 filmmakers using their site to submit to over 2,000 film festivals.  Thanks to this success, that year Withoutabox was bought by the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) for a reported $3 million.  

This was welcomed by filmmakers as it meant that it was much easier for them to add their films to IMDb, gaining all-important industry credits on the de facto database of record. Interestingly, IMDb's history mirrors that of Withoutabox, albeit ten years earlier.  IMDb came to life in 1990 as a usenet board and by 1998 had grown into the world's largest film directory when it was bought by Amazon.

So, both were started by film fans, both used the internet to solve problems for filmmakers and both were bought out eight years after their launch. However, there is one big difference - the film fan who founded IMDb, Col Needham, is still in charge of the company and works to keep it in line with the original ethos which made it succeed in the first place.

By contrast, only a few years after the sale, all of Withoutabox's founders had left the company.

The honeymoon was over for festivals

Even before the sale to IMDb, filmmakers were starting to voice their concerns about Withoutabox as their system was clunky, slow and relatively buggy.   I ran a film festival around this time and we repeatedly found that our festival details had been wiped over with old information.

In addition to technological struggles, the payments system was hugely unpopular.   If film festivals wanted to accept free submissions then they would be charged an upfront fee of $2,000. Festivals which charged submission fees (as two thirds do) were charged a commission of up to 18%, plus an upfront fee in the region of $500 to $1,500.  

Festivals could reduce the commission if they purchased advertising packages, costing between $300 and $3,500.  This meant that the smaller festivals which couldn't afford the advertising packages ended up paying the highest commission. Festivals were required to give a "discount" of five currency points to filmmakers using Withoutabox (so a UK festival would be required to drop the submission price from £15 to £10).

While this sounds like a move to help filmmakers, in fact it had the effect of causing 'standard' submission fees to rise. In addition, Withoutabox members only benefited from this "discount" if they had bought a premium package costing between $160 and $400 to upgrade their account - none of this revenue was passed on to festivals.

If a member submitted to a festival without an upgraded account, then Withoutabox kept those five currency points, on top of their commission fees. All this meant that if a festival wanted to charge £25 for submissions then they would end up with just £16.40 (£25 minus £5 and 18% fee).

Finally, festivals were required to sign exclusivity deals, meaning they couldn't use other companies which provided core services similar to Withoutabox, such as handling submissions.  

When festivals experimented with other services (in addition to Withoutabox, not instead of them), they would receive strongly worded missives making it clear that if they did not desist then they would no longer be able to use the Withoutabox platform.

Filmmakers also fell out of love with Withoutabox

Withoutabox's restrictions were also felt by filmmakers.  The site's biggest technology upgrade was the addition of a video streaming service which allowed film festivals to watch submitted films online rather than asking for DVD copies, called "Secure Online Screeners" (referred to by Withoutabox as S.O.S., seemingly without irony).  

It was hardly groundbreaking: launched in December 2009 it came five years after the birth of Vimeo and was extremely temperamental. Filmmakers had a hard time uploading their films, festivals struggled to watch them back and there were complaints that it was slow and prone to crashing.

Buried within the filmmakers' agreements were incredibly broad clauses which gave Withoutabox an almost unrestricted right to do anything they wanted with filmmakers' films.  

Some of these rights were irrevocable and included giving Withoutabox the right to re-license the films to third parties. One such clause read as follows...

You grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license right to use, copy, reproduce, transmit, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any information, data, Work, or any other information associated with your Work (collectively the “Submitted Materials”) you submit to us via the Services in any media or format.

Withoutabox shifted from liberator to captor

So, to recap, we have...

• A bad, buggy site

• Large upfront fees for film festivals

• High commission fees

• Forced discounts, which were only passed on to filmmakers if they sign up for paid plans

• Anti-competitive practices

• Grabbing unnecessary rights from filmmakers

Anger and frustration within the film festival community grew.  When I surveyed film festival directors in 2013, Withoutabox received scathing reviews.  I asked the festivals to rate Withoutabox out of ten and it received low scores across the board.  The categories were value for money (4.2 out of 10), customer service (4.6 out of 10), ease of use (4.5 out of 10) and overall (4.9 out of 10). Here is just a taste of what they said...

If there were one piece of advice I would give a beginning film festival promoter, it’s avoid Withoutabox like the plague.

We stopped using [Withoutabox] this year after 8 years because we felt that for the number of entries, it wasn’t worth what we were losing to them. including our package fee and the 18% cut per entry, we only took home about 57% of our fees, to get about 350 entries.

Withoutabox is the ugliest monopoly in the festival scene, and they keep your entry fees artificially high. Before a festival has even received a single submission, they’ve already spent thousands on Withoutabox for basically an entry system that hasn’t significantly improved in years.

And it wasn't only filmmakers and film festivals which had woken up to how bad Withoutabox was, the US authorities also took note.  The Federal Trade Commission opened an investigation and interviewed a number of film festival directors, focusing on Withoutabox's anti-competitive practices around exclusivity. Despite this growing rage, Withoutabox stayed the same.  Their system was not overhauled, their prices did not change and it was business as usual.

Why did nothing change?

If everyone was so unhappy with Withoutabox, how did they get to keep their crown as the pre-eminent submission site for film festivals? Because they owned a patent. 

Within a few months of launching in 2000, Withoutabox filed for a patent, which was then granted in 2004.  The wording is incredibly broad, and the summary is...

Internet-based film festival digital entry and back office services suite model. A new computerized methods using a database system on a global network to administer film festivals. The methods include the filmmakers inputting film information into the database, which information becomes available to selected film festivals. The system preferably handles multiple submissions to different festivals, processes applications, provides simultaneous judging of a competition, and schedules film play times at the festivals.

So if you wanted to create an internet-based film festival submission service then you would have to contend with Amazon's lawyers.  

A few plucky sites tried, but challengers had to contend with two lines of attack: legal attention from Amazon (such as the pressure which closed Submissions 2.0) and the festivals who used any new site also got squeezed (such as those who used Indee.tv and were told by Withoutabox that they must "deactivate all third party submission services in order to avoid disruption to your Withoutabox service"). And this worked; Withoutabox continued to provide a poor service, was widely disliked and yet kept a virtual monopoly.

FilmFreeway to the rescue!

In late 2013, the following tweet heralded the emergence of a new player on the scene...

The game is about the change. Finally, a free and user friendly alternative to Withoutabox for filmmakers. Launching January, 2014.

— FilmFreeway (@FilmFreeway) November 16, 2013

FilmFreeway was a Canadian company who had decided to take the plunge and go head-to-head with Withoutabox.  Their reasons for not fearing Withoutabox / Amazon's patent were threefold...

1. Location - The patent is only valid in the US and as FilmFreeway is a Canadian company it didn't restrict their non-US operations.  Some smaller European festival submission sites had taken advantage of this in the past but failed to gain a significant market share, thanks in part to Withoutabox's aggressive exclusivity arrangements.

2. Willingness to challenge the broad nature of the Withoutabox patent.  In the late 1990s, a flurry of extremely broad software patents were issued by the US Patent Office which were later successfully challenged in US courts (not least Alice Corp Vs CLS Bank).  These cases opened the door for FilmFreeway to claim that the Withoutabox patent did not meet the newly tightened requirements in order to be defendable.  It's unclear if they ever actually had to make such a defence, but knowing that they could gave them, and other festivals, confidence that FilmFreeway was not just a flash in the pan.

3. Design - Finally, FilmFreeway claim that they have engineered their system in a way that does not infringe the Withoutabox patent.  Their founders have a background in software development so this is certainly credible, although it must have been a tough ask considering the broad patent wording.

If back in the year 2000, Withoutabox was the perfect solution for the modern filmmaker's festival submission issues, then FilmFreeway was a perfect solution to the issues of the modern filmmaker.  

They offered a reliable, fast, online video screener system and they didn't charge filmmakers for using it.  At the time, Withoutabox was still charging $2.95 per submission (not per film, this was every time you used the online screener service to submit your film) and were not yet in HD, much to the chagrin of filmmakers.

The FilmFreeway interface felt modern and was quick to use.  By comparison, the Withoutabox system was based on the same basic code used when the site had been launched fourteen years earlier in 2000.  

In 2011, festivals had been told that the Withoutabox technology would be revamped but that was later put on hold. Therefore, it wasn't hard for FilmFreeway to seem like the knight in shining armour. Festivals also loved their pricing strategy as they offered completely free listings to festivals without submission fees (unlike Withoutabox who were charging up to $2,000) and their fees were under half of what some festivals paid Withoutabox.  

FilmFreeway charged festivals 8.5% of submission fees processed, although this could be reduced to 7% in return for a tweet and a logo on the festival page.  Taking a lesson out of Withoutabox's playbook, they offered their lowest rate (5%) to festivals who exclusively use their services. 

This fresh, modern approach was also carried over into their marketing.  A typical Facebook message from March 2104 read "Innovate or be relegated to obsolescence. ‪#‎Blockbuster‬ ‪#‎MySpace‬ ‪#‎Withoutabox‬".  

FilmFreeway shouted about the number of festivals they had signed up, and made a lot of noise as they closed in on Withoutabox's total.  

They even bragged about how much faster their site was compared with Withoutabox. In 2014, one of Withoutabox's original founders, David Strauss, reached out to FilmFreeway, suggesting a joint venture for his new project.  FilmFreeway declined the partnership offer, but never ones to shy away from a marketing opportunity, they tweeted a copy of his email.

CHECK THIS: The founder/CEO of Withoutabox tried to get FilmFreeway to partner up. Um, yeah, no thanks. We're good :) pic.twitter.com/chijDG3hqN

— FilmFreeway (@FilmFreeway) 20 November 2014

The new kid on the block

Filmmakers and festivals alike loved this bold, innovative new player in the film festival market.  Some were dying to leave Withoutabox, while others stayed with Withoutabox but benefited from the effects of actual competition in the marketplace. FilmFreeway's web traffic grew, as shown below via each site's Alexa Rank.  

The Alexa Rank measures the popularity of websites based on traffic, with the most popular website in the world (currently Google.com) having an Alexa Rank of 1. FilmFreeway first appears in the Alexa data in February 2014, when it was ranked 19,479,271th in the world, compared with Withoutabox's rank of 45,416.  FilmFreeway quickly gained more traffic and overtook Withoutabox in early June 2015.  

At the time of writing, FilmFreeway has an Alexa Rank of 45,748 and Withoutabox is at 62,737.

Withoutabox fought back

Withoutabox made efforts to reclaim their dwindling market share, including...

• Reducing their fees to festivals, eventually matching those of FilmFreeway.

• Dropping charges for 'free to enter' festivals.

• Dropping set-up fees.

• Removing exclusivity clauses.

• Upgrading their online video screeners.

• Altering the small print on filmmaker agreements to stop grabbing rights.

• Updating their site, although it appears to be more of a cosmetic change as their core system and festival-side is the same as it was in the early 2000s. They still admit that their site will cause "certain errors" if you use "Internet Explorer, Chrome, or Safari".

• They even ran Google Ads targeted at people Googling the phrase "Filmfreeway".

But the genie was out of the bottle and the anger and frustration that had been building for over a decade manifested as an exodus from Withoutabox to FilmFreeway.

Festivals flocked to FilmFreeway

Using public statements by the two companies (i.e. Withoutabox's declarations on their website and the FilmFreeway Twitter feed) I was able to track how many active festivals each had available to filmmakers at any given moment.

In July 2006, Withoutabox claimed to have 500 active festivals and by January 2008 they put the figure at 700.  

The next public figure I could find was in January 2012, when the number of active festivals had risen to 850.  

They have not publicly revised this figure since then.  FilmFreeway by contrast, have been regularly tweeting about their growing festival roster and as a result, much more detailed data is available.

In order to do more detailed primary research, I measured the number of festivals which are due to open in the remaining months in 2016. Withoutabox have 535 film festivals listed to take place between 1st April 2016 and 31st December 2016.  By contrast, over the same period FilmFreeway have 2,187 festivals, just over four times more.

What do film festival directors think of this revolution?

Another way of taking the temperature of the film festival world is to speak to the people who run the festivals.  Last month, I contacted as many film festival directors as I could, with 395 eventually sharing their views. Withoutabox achieved a higher rating than they did in the previous study:  in 2013 they received 4.9 out of 10 whereas this time they received 5.6 out of 10.  However, FilmFreeway came out on top, with an average of 8.6 out of 10.

What does the future hold for film festivals?

The Withoutabox patent is set to expire on 6th June 2022, so we can expect a flood of film festival submission services in the near future.  

Or perhaps the success of FilmFreeway will embolden others to bring forward their plans and launch other rival services before then. What is certain, however, is that Withoutabox's stranglehold on the sector is well and truly over.  

Never again will film festivals or filmmakers have to contend with an overbearing monopoly controlling their submissions. FilmFreeway may be the first new entrant to truly match Withoutabox, but they most certainly won't be the last.

Some other film submissions sites are already available, including Festhome, Reelport, Short Film Central, Short Film Depot, Click for Festivals, Film Festival Life, Festival Focus and MoviBeta, although none have the size and scope Withoutabox once had, and that FilmFreeway has right now.  

In addition, I personally know of a number of groups and individuals who are planning to launch online services aimed at some aspect film festival market, and there are no doubt many more that have yet to tip their hand. So, in pursuit of helping the sector catch up for lost time, I asked my festival directors what innovations they want to see next. Here are the most requested features, in order of popularity...

• Customisable submission forms. Numerous festivals complained that they did not have enough control over their online submission forms.

• Technology to manage the judging process. Each festival seems to invent its own system for assigning films to judges and tracking their feedback and so many requested a tailored system.

• An active filmmaker community. Festivals felt that they lacked a single space online where they could connect with filmmakers.  Some cited Withoutabox's large filmmaker database as the main reason they remain listed.

• Inter-festival collaborations. Many of the problems that film festivals face will already have been solved by other festivals and therefore the directors are seeking a way to connect and exchange ideas.

• Improved scheduling and management software to track submissions, prints, venues and tickets.

Epilogue

So there you have it - a story of youthful innovation turning into corporate dominance, only to be toppled by another generation's youthful innovation.  

I won't lie, a part of me kind of hopes that FilmFreeway become an evil corporate behemoth, if only for the narrative symmetry and so I can write another article like this one in a couple of decades time. The only thing that still puzzles me about this story is what the strategy was within Withoutabox / IMDb / Amazon.  

How many top level people knew what was really going on?  I'm sure Withoutabox staff knew how poor their systems were and how much their fee structure was hated, but did they tell their bosses at IMDb?  And did they in turn pass it up to Amazon?

It could be the case that the decision-makers at the top only discovered the true extent of the problems when FilmFreeway seem to effortlessly take away their entire business overnight.

Or, maybe everyone did know, but Amazon decided not to spend any more money and to just ride the patent out until it expired in 2018:  a slow death at the expense of the filmmaking community. Who knows.  

The truth is out there but until enough time passes that people are willing to talk openly, it will have to wait for another day...

NEW UPDATES TO THE STORY

9pm Monday 4th April: Since publishing this article I have been contacted privately by a number of people with interesting stories to tell – some staff ex-members, some festivals and some filmmakers with unique experiences. I’m still fact-checking of the new bits of information but one that I can share now is that a number of high profile festivals are still under exclusive contract to Withoutabox in return for favourable terms. The agreements are private (hence why I’ve agreed not to name names) but their agreements state that...

[Withoutabox will be] the exclusive, third-party, on-line system for accepting and processing films submitted.

So if you were wondering why some big festivals remain only on Withoutabox (rather than listing on both Withoutabox and FilmFreeway) then this could be one reason why.

Notes

I work hard on this blog to give the facts fairly and without bias.  I sometimes add my own point of view, but hopefully it's clear what's fact and what's conjecture, and also that my opinions don't colour the findings.

To this end, I tend to over-explain my methods and list the limitations to any findings. Above and beyond all topics, film festivals are the hardest to maintain a measured neutrality.  

Not because I have especially strong views (I don't) and not because I feel I'm skewing the results (again, I'm not), but because so many of the facts stack up in one direction.  It's like the Stephen Colbert joke about how facts have a well known liberal bias, and as you've read above, the facts overwhelming support FilmFreeway.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, here are some notes on today's research which should speak to any concerns people have about my aims, methods, bias, etc...

• I have not been paid by either Withoutabox or FilmFreeway.  Not in any way (i.e. cash / goods / tweets / hookers / blow / etc), not directly or indirectly and have received no benefit from either company or their people.

• This not an advert, advertorial or anything other than a wholly independent article which reflects the real views of the people I interviewed.

• As a filmmaker I have used Withoutabox a number of times (although not recently) and I also ran a small film festival via Withoutabox five or so years ago.  I have not used FilmFreeway, either as a filmmaker or from the festival point of view.

• I am happy to change any errors, and to add any commentary from any relevant party.  Just drop me a line on my contact form.  Alternatively, leave a comment below.

I have repeatedly reached out to Withoutabox for an interview but have been bounced between press offices, before finally being told by IMDb's Head of PR...

Thank you for your interest in Withoutabox. Unfortunately, we are not able to make someone available to speak with you at this time. We do appreciate your interest, though. 

I also approached a very senior person at IMDb via a mutual friend, but I have not received any reply.  I am still happy to hear from Withoutabox and would love to interview anyone there.  If you work for IMDb or Withoutabox then please do get in touch.

Rather fittingly, my own interactions with the two companies have reflected the wider truth - Withoutabox have been slow, unresponsive and ultimately refused to help, while FilmFreeway have been open, courteous and helpful.

I did manage to speak to a current FilmFreeway staff member, and a couple of ex-Withoutabox staff, for background research and fact-checking.  I'm grateful for their time and their candor, because some of the elements in the story relied on their information and corroboration.

Working out exactly how many festivals were historically available via Withoutabox was a challenge.  I used the Web Archive to look at old press releases and updated text on their website, but they have been fairly inconsistent, both with the figures and with the language used to describe what the figures related to.  For example, a press release on 17th July 2006 put the total number of festivals at 500, whereas another press release the very next day put it at 600.

Also, the way they described their stated numbers adds some confusion. For example, in January 2006 a press release included the phrase...

In operation since 2000, the Company first developed and patented The International Film Festival Submission System, currently connecting more than 75,000 filmmakers in 200 countries and 1,800 film festivals.

Whereas just six months later a new press release announced...

The Company's signature product, the International Film Festival Submission System, is now in use by more than 500 festivals worldwide, growing by up to 20 a month.

I used common sense to conclude that the 500 figure relates to active festivals and 1,800 is their historical database. I used the active festivals figure (i.e. 500) in the chart showing the number of festival open to submission via Withoutabox.  Their stated number of films within their database has also fluctuated hugely - in July 2007 it was at 2,765, five years later it had swelled to 8,136 but since then it has just been referred to as "more than 5,000".

Finally, please do add your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.  We are entering a new phase for film festival submissions and we're all still figuring out what it means.  What are your thoughts?

The London Film Festival is the highest profile UK film festival and takes place in many of the UK's most prestigious cinematic venues.  It's often regarded as being in the second tier of major international festivals, behind only The Big Five (Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Sundance and Toronto).  Each festival has their own tastes and therefore screen certain types of films.  Earlier this year I took a look at the films In Competition at the Cannes Film Festival so I thought I would take a look at the films at the London Film Festival.  In summary...

• 92% of films In Competition at the London Film Festival are dramas

• Films with public funding at the London Film Festival have lower audience ratings that those without

• Films shortlisted in Cannes are more male-centric whereas films at the London Film Festival are more female-centric

The London Film Festival REALLY likes dramas

Of the 59 films shortlisted for 'Best Film' over the past five years, only 5 (i.e. 8%) were not dramas.  Films often have multiple genres, meaning that the next most popular genres are comedies, thrillers and romances.

Does the BFI support their own films?

One often repeated comment about the BFI London Film Festival is that BFI-supported films seem to get favourable treatment.  Obviously this is not something we can measure conclusively but we can look for clues.  I compared the IMDb user ratings for the nominated films, splitting the films into two groups - films with public funding (from the UK Film Council, the BFI or Creative Scotland) and those without public funding.

The London Film Festival shortlisted films without public funding have a higher average score (7.1 out of 10) than those with public funding (6.7 out of 10).

What are the films about?

In my analysis of the Cannes nominated films I discovered that common themes were 'life' and 'love'.  For the London Film Festival, popular themes are young women and families.  Films shortlisted in Cannes are more male-centric whereas films at the London Film Festival are more female-centric.

Below is a word cloud which shows the frequency of certain words in the plots of London Film Festival nominated films of the past five years.

Methodology

I used IMDb, Wikipedia and the London Film Festival website to find details on all the films nominated for 'Best Film' award between 2011 and 2015.

Postscript

Interestingly, it seems that the BFI forgot to renew the web domain that used to host the London Film Festival, lff.org.uk.  The BFI initially bought the domain on 16th September 1996 but let the renewal lapse, allowing Morgan O'Connor to buy it on 17th December 2012.  This isn't the only such domain which used to be owned by the BFI which is now in other hands as ukfilmcouncil.org.uk now points to the website of the University of the Creative Arts.  To be fair to the BFI, they do manage around 70 domains, each needing annual renewal.

In total, 523 film festival directors shared their thoughts, providing 14,862 words of commentary. Below is a selection of their thoughts.

The key messages are:

• Film festival directors are just like filmmakers

• A great story is the most important factor in picking films

• Cinematography is the next biggest factor, along with good sound

• Every festival wants your film to be shorter

• The smaller festivals are crying out for better films

• Festivals expect the filmmakers to market their own screenings

• Press kits and fancy packaging won't help your chances of being selected

• Better subtitling and sound will

• Festival Directors really don't like Withoutabox

Running a Film Festival is Just Like Making A Film

About one in four of all the comments included the phrase "labour of love" and the overwhelming feeling I got was that of hard work in the pursuit of great art. This passion was indistinguishable from conversations I've had with filmmakers over the years.

We rely a lot on volunteers, individual contributions, and arts funding. We are obviously not in this for the money, and work hard at supporting filmmakers as best we can.

It’s harder to run a festival than make a film. Both are thrill rides with backbreaking work involved

You really don’t need much money or time or any clue about business or marketing to run a small film festival- the audience will find you. But you do need to love film and be able to take chances and tell stories that mean something to you. i guess running a film festival is like making a film.

Most festivals really care about filmmakers and make extreme efforts to honor them. It is their creativity, imagination and hard work that enables a festival to be top notch. Storyline , storytelling, pacing, editing and a RESOLUTION are keys that make films worthy.

When the glitz and glam are stripped away, it comes down to this: Have filmmakers shared a compelling, well-crafted story with us? Is the audience going to leave our festival theatre changed in some way?

It’s not easy to do this! Our fest is mainly fueled by passion until we can get more support via grants, sponsors and donors. I’ve personally sacrificed more than most people would even think about to pull this off every year, yet when we have filmmakers come in to our city, and really enjoy themselves, grateful for the honors we’ve bestowed, and move on to bigger and better things because of their experience with us, it makes it all worth it.

Behind The Curtain at Film Festivals

Our average selection rate for films is 5%. This isn’t much different from most festivals.

The programmers and directors make almost all the decisions during the judging process. Even in the so-called juried festivals/competitions the programmers and directors guide the selection process. Juries are social and often very unfocused and the real work and selections are made by staff. It’s really the only way the process can function.

Some categories go unentered and if they would have submitted they could have placed by default. The categories we’ve had the least amount of entries in are student films, foreign films, and animation.

Press kits are never looked at

The numbers of people drawn to the festival as an audience is always disappointing.

Film festivals book shorter films in so as to get a higher total of films in their festival overall, and therefore more people overall.

If you submit to the big, big festivals and you’re not already ‘connected’ or on the inside with someone at the festival, your film won’t be screened. The top tier festivals have a small network of friends and associates that program their films first, based on the names of those in the film.

The shorter your movie and the closer your footage was captured to the proximity of the festival, the better chance you have of getting into the festival.

Advice for filmmakers entering festivals

Submitting a “Work in Progress” is not in a filmmakers best interest as whatever is view is judged as a finished product. The evaluators cannot envision what the final product will look like the way the filmmaker can.

The earlier you send your film in, the better chance you have of selection

Always label the DVDs with name,address, phone number and if they submitted via without a box the number they get when doing so. I can’t tell you how often we get films in DVD form with nothing on them where the envelope it arrived in gets separated from the DVD and we are left trying to figure out how to get in touch with the filmmaker

If you have an online screener, you should write to the festival directly after submitting and ask if they’ll accept it in lieu of sending a DVD. Most will accept it.

All of your packaging, dvd cases, postcards, marketing materials, is thrown away immediately after pulling the DVD out.

Sending an email solicitation about your film to Film Festival programmers is not an effective way of getting your film on their radar.

Good written synopsises are helpful

Please send your films in the best quality you have. Too many are sending low res or not-well-encoded video files). Cover letters accomplish nothing.

We love to have representatives from the films in attendance!

English-speaking filmmakers should know that most international film festival programmers abroad are not all native speakers of English. Subtitling your film in English (even if English spoken) might be a good idea when sending your film abroad, especially if film relies on dialogue.

If you could say one thing to filmmakers...

The overwhelming feeling was positive, although there were some comments that seemed to come from years of frustration with filmmakers. I've added a selection of both kinds below:

The sense of entitlement seems to correspond with shittiness of movie.

Filmmakers need to be more proactive about promoting their films after they have been selected. We as the festival can only do so much as we need to promote the festival as a whole. Filmmakers can promote via social media or hands on by putting up posters themselves if they can attend the fest. Another way is they can reach out to media sources themselves, radio is usually looking for content and local news love to do interviews with a community arts slant. We as festival directors sometimes don’t have time to set that all up when the festival is in full swing.

Festivals like premieres so stop bragging about other festivals you’ve gotten into. It’s not a positive for us.

Festival organizers have an entire festival to promote. Unless your film is the opening night or closing night film, then expect to do the vast majority of the work yourself to generate an audience for your screening. If you do not engage in audience building for your screening, then you are very likely to be disappointed in the attendance for your film.

Once accepted in a festival, filmmakers must make sure one of their screenings (if you have more than one screening) sells out. You have to promote your screening(s) like a mad person. Use the screening itself as a reason to promote your film to anyone who’ll listen.

We are on your side, but follow the rules.

One of the things that irritates me the most is a film maker asking for a fee waver, and listing 20-30 film festivals they paid to enter before they considered our festival.

Out of the all the features we show, only one or two ever come from submissions.

People forgive bad picture, but they don’t forgive bad sound.

Bear in mind that smaller festivals are likely to be under-resourced/overworked and cut us some slack!

Read the guidelines properly. If a filmmakers film does not meet the criteria it will not be watched.

Stop asking for fee waivers. Seriously, please stop. More so, stop asking for waivers and then send us an angry response after we politely declined the opportunity to consider marketing your movie for free

Keep end of film credits short and be easy to contact

Use a large font for subtitles

Most entries could do with another edit

Making a movie with practically no money and resources today is an expectation rather than the exception. Absolutely no one is impressed anymore by anyone who made a movie on a shoe string budget in a limited amount of time.

"Shorty, where's my razor?"

About half of all the advice to filmmakers was about the length of their films. And the results are in….

• 0% = "Please can you make longer films"

• 100% = "Please, please, please make shorter films"

If you’re intending to make a short film, timing is of the essence! Short films that are over 25mins are incredibly difficult to programme into an event, and longer ‘short’ films have to be very VERY strong in order to make it through.

Filmmakers are long winded about their subject matter and shoot themselves in the foot, so to speak. Knowing how to tackle and get to the heart of the subject matter is the key to brilliant filmmaking.

Festivals only program movies which entertain and enthuse their audience. Ultimately, it is a cardinal sin to bore them.

Filmmakers often think that 10 minutes isn’t long enough for their film. Audiences often know that 10 minutes is too long for a first film.

Make your film shorter– 5 minutes or under and it will increase its likelihood of being selected.

Advice for other film festival directors

If you're thinking of starting your own film festival here are a few pointers from the guys already doing it:

Have a large contingency fee, have a bigger volunteer base than you think you are going to need.

Very hard to interest official bodies unless you’ve been doing it a while.

Running a Film festival is a huge work with lots if volunteers and a financial struggle but its worth it cause films get a wonderful audience in very crowded cinemas

It is MUCH harder than it looks (or would seem that it could possibly be), but can be really interesting and rewarding to make it worth the effort. Also, the first year is the hardest.

1. Know your audience 2. Publicity is everything 3. Partnerships are KEY

Go in managing your festival as a hobby, have a regular full-time job, and work like hell, and you will have a successful event.

Vital for success: Organizational Skills Funding other than tickets or entry fees. Stability in terms of graphic arts, web site, PR, volunteer support. Financial and entry selection integrity. Clear delineation of roles and responsibilities. Minimal sponsor control. Make it enjoyable for Everyone

You need a good five year plan and you must see it through. It takes time for events to get on people’s radar. So keep plugging your event and use social media!

It's a highly competitive space, with film festivals on very often in our city. Arts funders are not often interested in supporting us, because of the amount of film festivals in our city, and the local council and larger sponsors find us too small. Difficult to capture the market sometimes

It’s better to do a small festival really well than a large one poorly.

Sponsorship pays the bills 1) Treat them well 2) Don’t let them dictate the rules of sponsorship 3) Have a solid, reasonable sponsorship program 4) Ensure they get their monies worth 5) Follow up with them afterwards You have to be consistent in organization – you must be polished, even if you’re a casual festival

You can run a good festival on the cheap as long as you put a lot of effort into it. You need to build good partnerships and treat all the filmmakers and distributors with respect. It is a lot of work but very fulfilling

The public loves a Q&A with the director / crew – they really like to get involved!

Sponsorships for a film festival are very hard to get, and once you get them everyone wants a say in what they think would make the event great. Set up a good supporting group before starting a film festival.

It takes a certain combination of passion for cinema and championing filmmakers, and a suicidal death-wish to create and run a film festival, particularly in the current global economy.

The movie theatre business has been turned on its head, with local, independent theatres being devoured by big corporate chains. This makes finding affordable, available venues more difficult.

Raising sponsorship is the hardest aspect of all. To find someone who will sponsor the event, even though its profitable, is virtually impossible.

Screening films rarely make money, it’s the add-ons such as Festival Lounges where audiences can purchase sponsor supplied alcohol, food, etc, that help our festival break even.

It’s a long, stressful and complicated process, but totally worth it.

Test the equipment, test the films to make sure everything runs well, make sure the lighting and microphones are operating well and the cues are worked out with the technicians.

Lack of money

In a previous post I showed how very few film festivals are making money, with many struggling to survive year on year. A number of respondents mentioned that they didn't want to charge submission fees but felt compelled to by the economic realties of running a festival.

We know people don’t like paying submission fees, but without them our festival (and I assume many others) would not be able to make ends meet.

There seems to be a huge chasm between the prominent and monied festivals (Sundance/SXSW) and the majority of festivals that struggle with small budgets. There seems not be be a large “middle class.”

Don’t think you will make any money running a film festival.

Withoutabox

Many festival directors commented on Withoutbox. Here a few of their thoughts:

The WAB software interface used by festivals/competitions is difficult and often doesn’t work well.

If there were one piece of advice I would give a beginning film festival promoter, it’s avoid Withoutabox like the plague.

Film makers often don’t realize that WAB deducts a very big percentage of the entry fees paid by the filmmaker before passing on the remaining entry fees to the festivals/competitions. Festivals and competitions often absorb the costs of WAB mistakes to keep the good will of filmmakers rather than try to recover the costs from WAB.

We stopped using WAB this year after 8 years because we felt that for the number of entries, it wasn’t worth what we were losing to them. including our package fee and the 18% cut per entry, we only took home about 57% of our fees, to get about 350 entries.

We would like to accept online submissions but we can’t afford WithoutaBox.

This year is our first year using WAB and we decided to do so simply because we thought it would increase the number of submissions. It hasn’t worked out that way. We couldn’t afford to set up the account as ‘no fee submission’ so we set a nominal fee. The fee has discouraged submissions (I think) but our film festival is now publicized more within the filmmaker community.

Withoutabox is the ugliest monopoly in the festival scene, and they keep your entry fees artificially high. Before a festival has even received a single submission, they’ve already spent thousands on Withoutabox for basically an entry system that hasn’t significantly improved in years.

Caveats

Each festival director will have had different experiences and consequently their opinions will vary greatly. This article includes many quotations from film festival directors; some are contradictory and I'm sure that every festival director who reads this will find at least one comment they vehemently disagree with.

I have done my best to pick quotations that reflect common themes in the responses and I have favoured thoughts which are helpful to the most people (i.e. leaving out ones that are specific to a particular city, etc). I've not edited the text, save for things which improve readability.