[arg_discuss] is ARG just a marketing technique to the press?

[Dan Hon]

On 10 Jan 2008, at 19:07, Brian Clark wrote:


>> So, it's hard to get people to invest in IP ownership. You end up

>> persuading investors that they want to be investing in what they see

>> as straight content or, worse, a hits-based business (how do we know

>> you're going to be the next Spielberg?)

>

> People do it all the time, Dan, in the film space. It is hard to  

> imagine the

> true depth of film investment (if you get down to the Mom & Pop  

> level) in IP

> from independent filmmakers alone ... I bet it is competitive with  

> what the

> entire traditional corporate Hollywood spends in production in as  

> well. Not

> just that, but that capital even tends to be less risk adverse --  

> someone

> spending $5M investing in a film understands they are taking a long  

> shot,

> compared to someone investing $5M in a business (who probably wants  

> a surer

> shot than any film investor ever gets.)


Oh, I can definitely imagine that. Just another way in which the  
investment markets are all being shook up right now by what we're all  
doing in the entertainment space :)


>

> Different kind of capital raising, though: people understand how you  

> make

> money with a film. Show me an example of how you make money with an  

> ARG, as

> a default business strategy?


You don't, yet - which is why we're having this conversation :)


> That's the real issue keeping that kind of speculative investment --  

> the

> reward side, not the risk side. Plus, with the WGA strike, the  

> people that

> were putting $5M in films don't have a way to put that money to work  

> right

> now ...


I've been *really* interested in how that's been panning out. Very  
much so.

Dan