“The final thing I’d say about optimism is this. If we took the loopiest, most moonbeam-addled Californian utopian internet bullshit, and held it up against the most cynical, realpolitik-inflected scepticism, the Californian bullshit would still be a better predictor of the future. Which is to say that, if in 1994 you’d wanted to understand what our lives would be like right now, you’d still be better off reading a single copy of Wired magazine published in that year than all of the sceptical literature published ever since.”

Clay Shirky, in interview with Decca Aitkenhead of the Guardian.

Now the iPad comes along and human beings are learning something new about how we can experience a computer screen.  And maybe it is something quite old as well.

Recently I had lunch with a friend of mine who developed several applications for the iPad before its launch. When she started work on these applications she went through a month long period where she was working around the clock on this new device with no time for anything else.

Once she was finished she was happy to have some down time so she could read a book on her favorite device, the Kindle.  Much to her surprise, she found herself getting angry that she had to press buttons to interact with the screen—when all she wanted was a screen that would respond to her touch.

Last week I was in a store owned by a large consumer electronics manufacturer, (not Apple).  On display they have a frame for showing digital photographs, a beautiful device that can sit on your shelf at home.  One of the store associates told me that they have had to replace the screen twice in the past month.  Why?

Because people keep touching the screen, waiting for it to respond, but alas, it is not a touch screen device, so it does not do anything.  They poke it so hard and so relentlessly the glass screen finally cracks.

And then there is Babe Ruth and Michelangelo who had no computer screens to touch but understood something very fundamental about human communication.

In the fifth inning of Game 3 of the 1932 World Series, Babe Ruth was at bat and pointed to center field.  On the next pitch he hit a home run.  He could have yelled to the crowd, “I am going to hit a home run”. But all he had to do was point and the crowd knew what he meant. The gesture carried all the meaning he intended.

John Paul Stevens, our soon to be retired Supreme Court Justice, saw it with his own eyes as a 12 year old attending the game with his father.  He understood what Babe Ruth “said” with his hand.

Between 1508 and 1512 Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, at the commission of Pope Julius ll.  Nine scenes from the Book of Genesis are depicted on the ceiling, the best known of them, The Creation of Adam.  This central panel shows God reaching out with his index finger to give life to Adam, who reaches up his index finger to God.

Millions of tourists go through the Sistine Chapel each year and see what Michelangelo created.  On the one hand, they see the most godlike gesture depicted and simultaneously on the other, the most human gesture as well.

In all these disparate examples; the anger with buttons, the broken screen, the gesture to center field, the touching of God and man, we see a reference—indeed a pointing to something buried in our evolutionary past.

Before spoken language, before written language, before art, before technology, our evolutionary ancestors pointed to create and exchange meaning–to communicate with each other.   That evolutionary past is still embedded deep within the structure of our brains.

This ability to create meaning with our hands through the simple act of pointing is a central part of what makes us human.  With that gesture we join the physical part of ourselves with the mental part of ourselves.

Apple has properly recognized that these two different “selves” are in fact made for each other and indeed, really not separate at all.

By doing so, they have created a “user experience” that is actually “human”.

This is the central reason why people respond so enthusiastically to the iPad.

The Apple engineers have taken the most sophisticated technology humans currently create and married it to the most primitive part of our nature.

Or put it another way.

Apple simply figured out what Babe Ruth and Michelangelo knew all along.

The three sides of this triangle are social, mobile and real time.  Though the poster children for this triangle are Facebook, the iPhone and Twitter, this innovation extends far beyond these three companies.

This triangle creates a major shift in peoples’ experience of the Internet.

Now many people are;

1.  Always connected to the Internet,

2.  Constantly connected to their social graph and,

3.  Perpetually acting as a bridge between the virtual and physical world.

People have the Internet in their hands as they move about the real world and they are breaking down the old distinction between our “virtual” and “physical” worlds.

This process will accelerate as more people buy smart phones, which they are doing at a rapid pace.

So why should filmmakers care?

Filmmakers, distributors and theater owners want to bring people into theaters to see their films.  The golden triangle continuously spins off new tools that enable them to do so at a low cost.

So here are a three suggestions;

1.  Encourage people to bring their cell phones to the theater. (And use them there!),

2. Improve wireless access within the theater. (So these phones are easier to use!) and

3. Before and after each screening use the theater screen to enable people to communicate with other people in the theater and their friends outside the theater. (About films in general or the film they are about to see or have just seen.)

In other words, use these digital tools to enhance the social aspect of the film going experience.

That’s right, create a better social experience–a key reason most people go to see films in a theater in the first place.

Netflix is quietly becoming available on massive numbers of TV screens across the US and no one seems to be noticing.

The Netflix streaming service is now available on PS3, XBOX, and Wii, all gaming systems that are hooked up to the internet and to the TV.  How many of these boxes are in the US marketplace?  20 Million, 30 million?

Sony, LG, Samsung, Vizio, all the major manufacturers of connected TVs and blu ray players in the US are now shipping these devices preloaded with internet access and Netflix.  So by the end of the 2010, will this group of devices be in 15 to 20 million US homes?

Is it possible that by the end of 2010 Netflix will have a base of 50 million homes in the US able to get its streaming service on their TV?  If so, this is astounding. It is even astounding at half that number.

A subscription platform with movies and TV shows in SD and HD is available for less than $10 per month.  And, by the way, you can also get a DVD shipped to you in the mail, if the program is not available on the streaming service at no additional cost.

Forget HULU, forget Cable VOD–Netflix  is becoming ubiquitous and no one seems to be noticing.

Talk about the success of an over the top service that is priced right for the consumer.

Pretty soon, people will be saying, “Why should I use HULU when I can get Netflix on my TV? or Why should I have cable TV if I have Netflix on my TV?

Netflix is TV Everywhere right now!

And no one is talking about it.

I think filmmakers look for three opportunities that truly define them as filmmakers.

They are:

1.  The ability to tell a visual story from beginning to end, without any interruption, as a complete, continuous experience.  This is what separates them from people who create stories for TV as most TV series are produced with commercial interruptions or different viewings (episodes) in mind.

2.  The chance to have an audience gather in a theater and watch this visual story together, as a shared experience in time and space.  In the course of a film’s distribution it may be seen in a lot of different settings, public or private, but the filmmaker is making the film with this key audience in mind.  This is the primary target of all his/her imaginings.

3.  The opportunity to see his/her film with an audience.  Filmmakers want to physically experience the film with an audience. The filmmaker wants to see if they laugh or cry when he/she intended, if the audience got the point–to see if their film really succeeded at reaching another human being.  As every filmmaker knows who has done this–a genuinely scary moment.

So each of these opportunities really goes to the heart of what is most essential about calling yourself a filmmaker.

Think of them as a set of principles about the relationship between the creator of a film and the audience for which it is intended.

And here is what is most surprising as we move from the analogue past to the digital future.

These opportunities are not disappearing into the analogue past.

In fact, they are just beginning to open up.

On January 2, 2001 Apple announced the launch of iTunes, the service that offers TV shows, movies, songs and games to all its devices (and to all PCs whether Apple or not).  In September 2009 it announced iTunes 9, the most recent version of the service.

So let me get this straight.  Apple is on version 9 of its service and Sony is just announcing the launch of its service (presumably to launch in 2010).  According to my math it has taken 9 years for Sony to simply replicate what Apple created. That is right–9 years.

Is this what they call–Speed to Market?

Survival in today’s marketplace requires innovation.  Innovation requires focus and speed in execution.

Perhaps there is a fundamental truth revealed in the letters of the new Sony Online Service, as Sony raises its flag and says–SOS!

Disney and Cablevision Take ABC Fight Public

Apple Sues HTC, Saying It Violated Touch-Screen Patents for Phones

Viacom and Hulu Will Part Ways, Removing Comedy Central Shows From the Video Site

It is little too much coming apart, not enough coming together.

What they  believe is that the features sell themselves–that is why they built the product and that is why the product is so great.

In fact, consumers are not interested (nor have they ever been) in features.  They are interested in experiences.  This is what technology companies need to realize–they really are in the business of creating experiences.

For example, when I worked for Nokia, Apple released the iPhone.  Every friend of mine who bought one was eager to tell me about it.  I would always ask them–how do you get on the internet?  They always said, almost without exception, “I do not know, I just do.”.  And they loved that experience.

On a Nokia smart phone, getting on the internet was possible, but you had to know how to do it and it was not easy.  Of course, Nokia phones had a lot of great features–they would tell you all about them in their ads.

On the iPhone, there may be a lot of features– they power the experiences–but you do not have to know about them to get to where you want.

Nokia creates features.

Apple creates experiences.

Smart companies create experiences.

This position asserts that advertising is best done online because it is more efficient and more effective in getting consumers to buy. Real proof is yet to be established for this proposition but it is asserted anyway and treated almost as the gospel truth.

Let me make a counter assertion.  The most powerful tool to create consumer demand for a product ever invented is the TV commercial (in its 15, 30 or 60 second form).  Nothing, so far, has been created that competes effectively with this form of advertising in any other form of media known to humankind (thus far!).

When a TV commercial campaign works, it drives huge awareness, and creates an enormous desire for consumers to buy, buy, buy.  Any attempt in any other medium to create the heights of either awareness or “desire to buy” in a consumer has yet to come close.  This does not mean that every commercial works (or that every product is good), it just means that this form of advertising is miles ahead of anything else when done well (and sometimes even when done poorly).

When Apple launches a new product it blitzes TV with commercials that create huge consumer demand.  In addition they also create huge buzz in the culture at large, with free word of mouth that reverberates day after day after day.  So we have to ask a question?  Is Apple not internet savvy?  I would say yes.  Then why would they spend most of their money on TV advertising, on the TV commercial?  Are they wasting their money by not targeting their consumers as they can on the internet?  I would say no, because they understand that TV commercials deliver a bigger bang for the buck than any amount of advertising they could buy on the internet.

And further, when HULU wanted to increase their audience, did they spend money advertising on the internet?  No, they bought a super bowl ad.  Did it work? Yes, their traffic rose by a huge amount following the super bowl.

Now the question is—what will replace the TV ad on the internet that will create the same desire to buy?  Do companies just move their TV commercials online?  Or do they try something else?  Can the TV commercial be replaced by something else using video on the internet that is just as or more effective?

Today, as a result of rapid digital innovation, a filmmaker has the opportunity to use another set of tools to unlock and organize the passion of her audience. When deployed successfully they give an audience a chance to share a passion with each other and connect with the creator of the movie.  Through their use the filmmaker expands her audience in every venue her film plays.  These digital tools are broadly available across many online social networks and they are free.

Are filmmakers and distributors truly taking advantage of these tools?  Let’s look at the recent release of BRIGHT STAR as an example.

BRIGHT STAR is an exquisitely realized movie in every way, from its acting, its directing, its screenplay, to its cinematography.  It was a pleasure to watch with an audience.  Jane Campion made great use of the tools she was given.

What about online?

BRIGHT STAR’s web site looks well designed, plays music that sets the proper mood and provides links to basic information about the movie.   It all looks great. Unfortunately the site just sits there, like a dressed up newspaper or magazine ad.  This is how the web was used five, even ten years ago.

At the bottom of the page there are links to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter.  Aren’t they the web of today?  Look at these links closely.  The MySpace fan page has 21 friends, the Facebook page has 1,409 fans and the Twitter account has 261 followers.   These are all small numbers, even Facebook’s.  These social networks are vastly underutilized.

BRIGHT STAR put up its website and began posting to these platforms on August 13, roughly thirty days before the initial theatrical release of the film.

This was their first mistake.  You can’t engage with an audience online and get their attention within social networks on such short notice.

Since the launch online they have posted 7 times on Facebook and have created 59 Tweets on Twitter.

This is a very small number for two months of activity.On Twitter, BRIGHT STAR is called @keatstweets, on Facebook, BRIGHT STAR.  The tweets never appear on Facebook, nor do the Facebook posts appear on Twitter. In addition, none of the tweets contain a URL that directs anyone to more information about the movie, where it is playing, who is in it, who directed it, or more importantly what other people feel about it.

The mistakes include; starting late, creating only a small number of posts, naming the BRIGHT STAR effort different things on different platforms, failing to link the platforms being used and not understanding the specific value each platform has to offer.  In sum, not a great use of the tools.

More importantly, there is one fundamental mistake that undercuts all of BRIGHT STAR’s digital efforts.

The distributor is not selling the right brand to organize and deliver the audience they seek.  The brand that needs to be “sold” here is not BRIGHT STAR.  It is JANE CAMPION.  Why?  Audiences want to experience BRIGHT STAR but they want to connect with JANE CAMPION.  In the social web that makes all the difference.

What do I think should be done to gather an audience online and deliver paying customers to movie theaters?

Here are a few ideas.  They would apply to any independent filmmaker or distributor, so Jane Campion is really a stand in for every filmmaker.

FIRST– Jane Campion should have a blog that is called Jane Campion.  On it she should post anything that gives everyone a sense of her artistic vision, such as links to her movies, links to interviews she has posted on YouTube, comments about her favorite films, influences, etc.  She should have a fan page on Facebook and a Twitter account, (also under Jane Campion) so that whenever she blogs it appears on those platforms as well.

SECOND–When she starts making a film– no later than the first day of preproduction–she should post to her blog and tweet regularly about the production.  This allows the audience to share in her experience as the film evolves.  She should continue this through the completion of the film all the way up to and during the release of the movie in every market in which it appears.

THIRD–When the film is initially released she should attend as many regular theatrical shows of the film as she can and meet with her fans one on one when they exit.  She should tweet her location before she arrives to let people know she is coming and what she is hearing from fans.  She should have someone with her use a smartphone to record, publish and tag these conversations for all to see—all flowing back to her blog, to Facebook, and Twitter.   She should encourage all her fans to create and share from their phones as well.

All of these ideas use digital tools that exist today and are free.  They unlock the passion that resides in the audience, their desire to connect and share.  They generate a very large multiplying effect.  (In the old days, this was called word of mouth.)

Now, ask yourself the following.  If Jane Campion had the same number of followers on Twitter that Zoe Keating has (1,131,033, @zoecello), and she used the three ideas above, do you think BRIGHT STAR’s box office gross would be higher than it is today?

And what about BRIGHT STAR’s Academy Award campaign?  Would it be more successful?

(Note:  This was originally published in October 2009, just following the release of BRIGHT STAR.  The mistakes made with this film are being made by others and the recommendations still apply.)