Sneaky subtext
If you go back through the stories of Phil and Andre, you might notice one piece of tantalizing subtext.
It’s easy to miss.
Despite the divergent paths they took with their films, and despite their wildly different results…
Both Phil and Andre made nearly identical debut films for nearly identical budgets.
Each made a comedic crime drama that paid homage to Fargo.
Each one did it on a shoestring budget from their own pocket.
And both of them did a good job.
As far as I’m concerned, their debut films could have been identical in 97% of the storytelling and craft choices.
What’s the deal with that other 3%?
What is Andre doing that allows his micro-budget drama to be a business-launcher, while Phil’s film is essentially deadweight?
---
Here’s the first big lesson of IFU.
It’s not the quality of your film that drives financial results. It’s how you position your work relative to everything else on the market.
You might want to read that sentence again.
Both Phil and Andre made films with identical aesthetic qualities.
Both were skilled storytellers and craftsmen, and both made something worth watching.
Yet they ended up in vastly different places.
For most filmmakers, myself included, this is an uncomfortable realization.
Most of us spend every waking moment trying to make better films, on the assumption that if we do, the money will follow.
“If only I could break out of micro-budget territory,” we tell ourselves, “I’d be able to make some real money.”
But here’s the hard truth.
In a world where billion-dollar mega corporations are churning out high-end, slickly produced content at a dizzying rate, “quality” isn’t an area where we can compete.
No matter how much you strive to master the craft…
No matter how much nice equipment you get…
No matter how many talented collaborators you recruit…
No matter how much money you’re able to raise…
If you’re trying to make your work stand out through sheer “quality,” Hollywood will have you beat 100% of the time.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is you’re probably already a good enough filmmaker to make something people will happily pay for.
---
So if we can’t compete on quality, what do we do?
The game, my friend, is won and lost in shifting audience perceptions.
It’s about making decisions that cause audiences to perceive your film not as better than other options, but as different.
In the business world, this is known as positioning. And it’s extraordinarily powerful.
That 3% difference between Phil and Andre’s films is fundamentally about positioning.
Andre decided early on to make something that would be meaningfully different for a specific group of people.
99% of the global population couldn’t care less about the changes that Andre made. In fact, they might find those changes strange and off-putting.
But for a small sliver of the population, those changes are everything.
Those details transform Andre's film from noise into signal.
For this group, the film is positioned in such a way that it's far more worthy of their attention than the latest superhero tentpole monstrosity.
That’s how Andre’s film earns their business.
It’s not better. It’s different.
And not just different for the sake of being different.
It's different in a way that's meaningful to one small sliver of the market.
---
Here’s one more important lesson before we wrap.
Finding ways to effectively position your work will mean making changes.
There will likely be some changes to the stories you tell, and how you tell them.
And there will certainly be changes in how you talk about your work.
But those changes don’t have to be radical in order for you to succeed.
3% is all it takes.
Maybe you have a burning passion for supernatural thrillers, or romantic comedies, or social issue documentaries, or arthouse films.
Whatever floats your boat, you can make this work if you embrace the art of positioning.
Provided you know how to tweak that 3% so that it aligns with a specific group of people, you can still lean into those passions and make a living.
Small changes can indeed make a world of difference.