{"id":235,"date":"2015-11-19T00:24:33","date_gmt":"2015-11-19T00:24:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/?page_id=235"},"modified":"2015-11-19T00:34:50","modified_gmt":"2015-11-19T00:34:50","slug":"the-long-road-to-profitability-funding-and-monetization-of-toronto-based-web-series","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/?page_id=235","title":{"rendered":"The Long Road to Profitability: Funding and Monetization of Toronto-Based Web Series"},"content":{"rendered":"

Above: Ads seen from Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto for content on YouTube, shomi and Netflix.<\/em><\/h4>\n

Note: The first version of this report was written earlier this year. Since then, there have been many changes to web series funding. For example, the Cogeco Fund<\/a> has started funding web series\u00a0development\u00a0and the OMDC has changed some of the requirements for their interactive fund<\/a>. Except for some changes to formatting and grammar as well as the\u00a0integration\u00a0of a\u00a0few additional\u00a0references, this report hasn’t been extensively updated and does not\u00a0take into account\u00a0these larger changes to web series funding. Despite this, I feel as if the interviews performed for this project still give some valuable insight into the web series space.<\/em><\/h4>\n
\n

Canadians watch a sizeable quantity of videos online. According to ComScore, which has been cited by others when determining the size and makeup of the digital video space (Nordicity, 2014; Marx, 2011; Peirce & Tang, 2012), Canadians watched on average 24.6 hours of video online per month in the fourth quarter of 2014, 5.1 hours more than Americans (ComScore, 2015, p. 13). More Canadian mobile subscribers watched web-based videos (22% more), paid television and video (41% more), and live or on-demand television (33% more) in December 2014 than in December 2013 (ComScore, 2015, p. 16). This makes Canadians a prime audience for new video content, such as web series. Moving along to content creation, Toronto specifically appears to be a hotbed for web series production. According to the Nordicity (2014) Industry Profile of the Independent Web Series Creators of Ontario<\/em> report, produced for the Independent Web Series Creators of Canada, 77% of Ontario-based web series creators reside in the Greater Toronto Area in 2013 [See Footnote 1] (p. 14). How can those looking to create web series within this space do so in a sustainable, profitable manner? Is it even possible at all? After investigating this question, it appears as if narrative-based web series made within the funding and monetization context of Toronto do not have a clear profit making avenue. However, as I will explain, it is still important to develop this format for the sake of the greater media industry.<\/p>\n

This report is not intended to be a step by step guide to all or even the best methods of monetization and funding for web series. As will be explored, web series simply aren\u2019t at a point where such sweeping conclusions can be made or where every possible avenue could be summarized coherently in one text. Dan Williams (2012), author of Web TV Series: How to make and market them, <\/em>remarks on the complex issue: \u201cHow do you create a hit web series? The truth is that what works for one show is not replicable by another\u201d (Preface, para. 2). This report will instead present the experiences of those working on web series in the Greater Toronto Area, contextualizing these experiences with more information and presenting some of the needs of those working within this developing market. As they conclude their study of web series of Streamy Award winning series, Peirce and Tang (2012) noted that \u201ccontent analysis cannot provide insights into the expectations and motivations of webseries producers and\/or consumers\u201d and recommended that surveys and interviews be performed (p. 170). Some of this documentation is happening. Williams (2012), for example, includes interviews in his book with people from different places across the globe. While useful sources of information, the geographically focused interviews of this report have helped uncover specific insights regarding the work of web series creation in Canada and Ontario.<\/p>\n

Methodology<\/strong><\/h3>\n

At the beginning of the research process, interviews were to be undertaken and recorded in person, and analyzed to arrive at an understanding as to what methods of funding and monetization would be considered viable for web series. The question sheet used for interviews is included with this report as Appendix A. The names of interview subjects will not be used in this report.<\/p>\n

Web series producers were found using web series lists on various web sites (\u201cCanadian,\u201d n.d.; \u201cWeb Series,\u201d n.d.; \u201cWip Webseries in Canada,\u201d 2015) and through personal industry knowledge. Whether the web series were produced in the Toronto area was determined through the aforementioned lists, the series\u2019 websites or related sites, social media accounts and industry knowledge. As to narrow the differences in experiences based on choice of show formats, a focus was put on web series that were scripted and episodic in nature.<\/p>\n

Six people were interviewed with regards to their work on web series. Attempts were made to reach out to more people. However, scheduling issues limited the number of possible interviews in some cases. The interview subject selection process was not intended to result in a statistical representative group with regards to people working on web series today. Whatever their role or roles on the production of their respective series, interviewees were able to speak regarding the funding and monetization of their series. If they had worked on more than one series, a single series was agreed upon as the topic of discussion. If they worked on multiple seasons of a series or on certain seasons of a series, interviewees spoke about the period of time they were themselves involved in the production, thus the period they were most knowledgeable of. Questions were modified depending on the answers given and follow-up questions were asked for clarification or to probe for more information, in some cases over email. Questions can \u201c[emerge] from the dialog between interviewer and interviewee\/s\u201d during semi-structured interviews (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006, p. 315).<\/p>\n

Groups that represent web series creators or fund web series were also integrated into this report. A representative of Interactive Ontario was interviewed in person. According to Nordicity\u2019s (2014) Ontario report, 6% of respondents declared they were members of Interactive Ontario (p. 37). Representatives of the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) also answered questions by email. Twelve percent of respondents to Nordicity\u2019s (2014) survey said they made use of this agency\u2019s IDM Fund (p. 17).<\/p>\n

\u201cFunding\u201d versus \u201cMonetization\u201d<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The initial assumption taken when planning for this report and creating the interview questions (See Appendix A<\/a>) was that sources of money obtained to pay for the production of a web series, a series\u2019 \u201cfunding,\u201d is in an entirely separate category from sources of money obtained following the release of a web series, its \u201cmonetization.\u201d However, following the interviews performed for this report, it is evident that the distinction of money obtained before, during or after production is much less clear cut. One interviewee for example, explained that they received a distribution advance that was being used to fund their ongoing production. However, a portion of this advance was given to the Independent Production Fund (IPF) for the purpose of recoupment, as it was money obtained after the establishment of the contract with the IPF. Would the advance be considered funding despite it being used to recoup another funding source? Another interviewee explained that fees for a rebroadcasting license they received from an international broadcaster for their first and second seasons of their web series helped fund their third season. This could be considered both monetization of the first two seasons and funding for the third. Regarding sources of financing, 18% of those responding for the Nordicity (2014) Ontario web series report stated that they made use of money from past web series to fund another series (p. 17). Money obtained for or from a web series or a season of a web series does not exist separately on its own. As the time at which money was obtained for a production is not a clear enough differentiation of its use, this report will focus generally on all sources of income.<\/p>\n

Aiming for the Black and Seeing Red<\/strong><\/h3>\n

It appears that making a profit from producing a web series isn\u2019t possible yet, or is very rare. The Nordicity (2014) report declares that \u201cfundamental challenges remain from a financing and monetization perspective. As yet, sustainable revenue from web series is more often the exception than the rule\u201d (p. 10). The same report mentions that 41% of survey respondents did not earn any revenue through web series in 2013 (Nordicity, 2014, p. 17). Adding to that statistic is the estimate that $3.14 million in revenue, including grants and tax credits, was created through independent web series in 2013 in Ontario, an amount that only represents 23.8% of all revenue gained that year by those working in web series (Nordicity, 2014, p. 16). Those working in web series earn more revenue from non-web series activities and often make no money at all through web series.<\/p>\n

The interviews undertaken for this report reflect this uncertain situation regarding monetization. One interviewee, who does not expect to repay in total the money they received from the Independent Production Fund, stated that they simply didn\u2019t have monetization as a goal for their project. However, other interviewees explained that their projects were not yet profitable and the possibility of making a profit was seen as either uncertain or not probable. One interviewee explained that they used to have monetization as a goal but<\/p>\n

very, you know, slowly, over the course of time, I realized that, you know, monetization is almost impossible on scripted content. \u2026 What my goal now is, like, quite simply, just to raise enough financing to just produce the thing. Like, let alone turn a profit on it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The objective to aim for further content creation, rather than profitability, appears to be a common one. Despite elusive profitability, three of the interviewees were discussing projects that have had multiple seasons. Interview subjects are also still working on monetization despite issues regarding profitability. One subject explained that \u201cwe haven\u2019t done things like putting it on iTunes or selling DVDs. Like, there are other things that we can do that we\u2019re actually now researching and plan to dive into. So, there may still yet be profits to come [\u2026].\u201d The search to make money from web series creation is still on. However, with no clear solution yet, where does this leave us? There are still many reasons why web series are worth exploring both as a medium in and of itself and as a benefit to the greater entertainment industry.<\/p>\n

Audience Interaction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Television has a fan problem. Derek Johnson (2007) explains that fans could be considered \u201cunruly house guests, letting the industry know where they dislike the d\u00e9cor and demanding the industry\u2019s hospitality,\u201d (p. 77) as fans can now enter the worlds of TV shows as they couldn\u2019t before with multiplatform narratives and that they show their intense interest in TV shows with critical feedback. However, having demonstrated examples where TV shows pushed back against fan interests and perspectives within the shows themselves or where fan surrogate characters were narratively put in their place, Johnson (2007) goes further and concludes that \u201cfrom the industry\u2019s perspective, the fan serves not as an invited guest, but rather as domestic help, invited in so as to perform labour\u201d (p. 78). There can be much animosity in the relationship between fans and the TV industry.<\/p>\n

This is in contrast with web series. Manager of the IPF, Carly McGowan (n.d.), frames the creation of web series not simply as making a show for an audience but as being part of or embedding with the audience:<\/p>\n

If you want to make a web series, you have to yourself be operating in that space, watching, consuming content so that you inherently understand the experience of being the audience, you know why people will watch and like your content (p. 4).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

From a more commercial perspective, the connection felt by online audiences can be beneficial to creators of web content. Marx (2011) explains, within the context of web-based comedy, that the genre does \u201ca very basic and desirable function long prized by the television industry: organizing the audience,\u201d adding that \u201ccreating a loyal community around that [web comedy] property [\u2026] promises the possibility that audiences will follow it wherever it goes,\u201d and likening this to the concept of \u201cappointment television\u201d (p. 21). Connecting with your audience as a web series producer is not only vital within this space but also beneficial and can be used to further your projects or products.<\/p>\n

Interviewees indicated that they interacted with and promoted to their audiences in various ways. A few common methods included the use of social media as well as online, social or video advertising. Some in-person promotional initiatives included participating at conventions and other events, staging their own events and contests and even using street teams to promote a series. One interviewee explained how they targeted influencers within their series\u2019 intended community. They were also able to leverage the pre-existing audience of their distribution partner. One interviewee mentioned using their social media coordinator to contact teachers for their tween-targeted series. Another subject was planning on doing synchronized watching sessions over Twitter. These various methods could be used by others to attract and interact with the ever-important audience of a web series.<\/p>\n

However, as important as it is to interact with audiences, what about using them for direct monetization or funding? Analyzing the success of Joss Whedon\u2019s Dr. Horrible\u2019s Sing-Along Blog<\/em>, Tamar Leaver (2013) explains, after conceding that \u201cnew and emerging web media creators are unlikely to have fan followings comparable with Whedon\u2019s\u201d, that<\/p>\n

Creating engaging content and using this to build loyalty with fans, and nurturing those relationship, is one of the strongest ways to ensure future productions have a receptive audience, who already, in part, have their interests primed. Even a small but vocal fan base can be enough to make the difference in ensuring web media with smaller budgets can eventually break even or make a respectable profit (p. 169).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This certainly offers a positive outlook on monetizing fan participation. However, as was the case with Joss Whedon before Dr. Horrible<\/em> and as Leaver frames it here, building a fan base occurs before the attempt to monetize a fan\u2019s interest. Is relying on fans for funding a possible solution for new creators without a pre-existing following?<\/p>\n

Crowdfunding<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s investigate the question of paid fan participation within the context of crowdfunding. Marcia Douglas (n.d.) of the Bell Fund states that \u201ccrowd funding is not reliable unless you have an excellent hook or an existing fan base to tap\u201d (p.10). This reinforces the idea that this method of funding or monetization might not be viable for new creators but rather, established ones.<\/p>\n

Some of the experiences of interviewees also seem to add to this notion. One interviewee explained how they started relying partially on a crowdfunding campaign for their third season while the first two were paid \u201cout of pocket\u201d and involved an unpaid cast and crew. They used a custom donation setup rather than an established crowdfunding solution. One reason for this choice was that they didn\u2019t know what the size of the budget would be. They also avoided a campaign of a set duration because the amount of effort required, saying that \u201cyou\u2019ve got to be kind of working on it 24 hours a day for that, you know, 30 days if it\u2019s 30 days.\u201d This simply wasn\u2019t feasible for them for personal and professional reasons. Douglas (n.d.) confirms this notion of the nature of crowdfunding, stating that \u201cIt is a lot of work. You will need a content plan and time and resources dedicated for your crowd funding\u201d (p. 10). This potential workload should be kept in mind if crowdfunding is chosen as a funding method.<\/p>\n

The interviewee also explained how crowdfunding helped them be more cognizant of the interests of their audience:<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve always looked at them as, they\u2019re the executive producers. Like, they\u2019re the ones that paid for this. And so my responsibilities to, were to them. And so, whenever making decisions about spending money, it was always in the back of my mind like \u2018Ok. If I gave my 20 buck to help fund the show, would I be glad that they made this decision to spend that 20 dollars on this, this or that.\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Examples of decisions taken with the audience in mind included whether submitting to certain festivals would help with the objective of delivering more and better quality episodes for viewers and including a storyline in season three for a character that fans liked but that would not have been there otherwise.<\/p>\n

This said, crowdfunding might not always work in all situations for all projects. A different interviewee explained having done two campaigns on IndieGoGo before production with mixed results. Despite this, they are planning another campaign. Another interview subject also made use of crowdfunding. However, they had had prior experience and had to front the money before crowdfunding. They also had a particular reward that earned them exposure and interest for their Kickstarter campaign. They aimed to reach 30% of their objective though family, friends and contacts before reaching out through press and social media. Such strategies could help with executing a successful crowdfunding initiative. However, it seems, as Douglas (n.d.) noted, novelty and established audiences can indeed help with this funding method.<\/p>\n

Platform-Based Monetization<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There are other ways to take advantage of one\u2019s audience to monetize a web series. Many of this report\u2019s interviewees have made use of monetization methods based around the platforms used to host their series. For example, some of the discussed series are hosted on YouTube and Dailymotion, used by 94% and 21% respectively of those surveyed for Nordicity\u2019s (2104) Ontario web series report (p. 25). One interviewee stated that they run no ads on their series on these platforms and another interviewee, operating only on YouTube, explained that while they do run ads, they have yet to receive any money from their series. One interview subject who has used both YouTube and Dailymotion explained that ultimately it \u201cbarely counts [as monetization] because it reaps so little money.\u201d Indeed, worries of low returns have pushed some away of platform-based monetization. Another interviewee has opted against advertising and subscription based platforms for the time being, wanting to sell their project as a \u201cpremium project.\u201d They are selling movie versions of the series through iTunes and Vimeo On Demand and they are confident of the future of their series on such platforms:<\/p>\n

Instead of in season one and two, where the TV sales were $10 to the $1 you got on the digital platforms, I think that we\u2019re gonna see that we\u2019re gonna now have $10 on the TV side and $5 on the digital platforms. We\u2019re gonna start seeing a closing of that gap and that has a lot to do with the evolution of more transactional video on demand.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Another interviewee avoided services such as YouTube and Dailymotion because they weren\u2019t expecting to make their money back though such platforms, opting for a slew of other services, including Amazon, Hulu, Vimeo\u2019s VOD service, Dailymotion\u2019s Open VOD, and iTunes, and mentioning that they prefer for revenue Amazon and Hulu, followed by Vimeo and iTunes. Some of other platforms mentioned by others include transactional platform VHX and subscription platform Just The Story but neither earned adequate returns according to the interviewees who mentioned them. There seems to be many choices, even more than those listed here, and also many different perspectives and strategies regarding which platforms to choose.<\/p>\n

Underserved Niches<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Beyond serving any audience with careful understanding and attention that appears to be necessary or at the very least beneficial, web series offer the opportunity to serve groups that have been underserved by conventional forms of media. The Nordicity (2014) report of Ontario web series took interest in highlighting the amount of web series that were produced in 2013 in certain niche genres including series focused on LGBT content (16%), Sci-fi and fantasy series (11%) as well as shows for children (15%) (p. 16). Of the series discussed for this report, one would be considered LGBT, another is science-fiction and two are aimed at a certain group of children. The Nordicity (2014) report goes as far as to state that \u201cestablished niches or communities of interest are required for successful web series\u201d framing this within the context of a move towards more targeted advertising and the importance of understanding how to interact with a show\u2019s niche (p. 38). This further establishes the importance and necessity of serving unconventional audience.<\/p>\n

Web series aimed at certain niches can also find partners within these niches to further their progress. Aymar Jean Christian (2011), for example, analyses the web series The Real Girl\u2019s Guide to Everything Else<\/em>, a web series that has a Lebanese lesbian lead character (para. 1.1). Christian (2011) explains that the series saw success with \u201cindependent and minority Web sites,\u201d with the series gaining the interest of sites such as DailyMotion and Koldcast as well as sites such as RowdyOrbit, which presents works by people of colour, and AfterEllen and OneMoreLesbian, both being sites that tailor to lesbian audiences and that offered support for the show (para. 4.10). Finding these partners and distributors within a niche can help further the project.<\/p>\n

Future Proofing the Media Industry<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Real Girl\u2019s Guide<\/em> wasn\u2019t merely a product for a niche market. The series was initiated following the first Sex and the City<\/em> movie, as a reaction to many elements of the movie including its poor diversity and representation of non-white actors as well as the apparent disrespect for the original material (Christian, 2011, para. 3.2). Beyond this catalyst, the series is seen as trying to redefine established conceptions of what would appeal to a female audience and is intended to be feasible in a commercial sense (Christian, 2011, para. 3.7, 4.6). It is an \u201cindustry reform project\u201d (Christian, 2011, para. 4.6).<\/p>\n

This reflects another reason why web series are important. They can promote change and experimentation to the greater media industry. The Nordicity (2014) suggests as much, stating while \u201cthe industry is not yet at the viable business stage,\u201d that \u201cWeb series creators act more like a research and development arm of the audio-visual sector\u201d (p. 20). Web series can act as a space to try new ideas. Nick Marx (2011), speaking again about web comedy, explains its particular ability to \u201c[offer] formal innovations in the largely unregulated online domain, on the one hand, while serving as cost-efficient talent development for major studios, on the other\u201d (p. 15), demonstrating the possibility to use the nature of the web to the benefit of the larger media structure.<\/p>\n

These benefits do not only extend to the greater industry. Letting web series act as testing grounds is beneficial to others within the web series domain. One interviewee said, when explaining why they wouldn\u2019t be able to repay funding on their project, that<\/p>\n

Part of the promise in this new world is we will be innovative in trying to sell and exploit the property in a very rapidly changing environment where nobody\u2019s certain [\u2026] where the money\u2019s coming from. And so, we have actually, I would say, been very aggressive in pursuing all sorts of commercial exploitation to bring some money in on this property because it will help the agencies and other producers understand where the money is and [\u2026] how to roll out your property in a way that you maximize the return.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Even with issues of profitability, it is important to support web series production for the sake of finding ways of making them viable in the future.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Broadcasters<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A possible avenue to profitability for web series producers might involve approaching the more entrenched players within the media space: broadcasters and networks. This might seem odd or contradictory at first. However, as Aymar Jean Christian (2012) concludes following his look at the history of episodic web content, the connection between the web and TV has always been there, stating that the format \u201chas never deviated from legacy media, including television, even at its most anarchic and open. Instead television has been an object of desire and abjection from those seeking an edge in online markets\u201d (p. 352). This doesn\u2019t mean that working with more mainstream media has been easy for those dealing in web series, however. One interviewee mentioned the disconnect existing between both spaces. They have been referring to their series as a TV series due to the amateurish connotations they believe arise with the term \u201cweb series\u201d in traditional media, despite the medium\u2019s output. They also noted the issues that arise when dealing with buyers since their web series is negatively considered \u201cshort form\u201d or \u201cindependently produced\u201d. The interviewee however argues that their work is \u201chigh-quality, low cost\u201d and \u201ccan fill holes in your schedule inexpensively.\u201d Indeed, according Nordicity\u2019s (2014) calculations, Ontario web series cost $63.33 per minute to produce versus $29,313 per minute for English fiction television in Canada (p. 22). The platform\u2019s low cost, rather than being abnormal to TV formats, could be used as an asset to entice broadcasters.<\/p>\n

Three of the series discussed by interviewees have received funds and some form of distribution with conventional broadcasting companies, including international broadcasters, domestic public and domestic private broadcasters. Conventional media deals can be advantageous beyond simply obtaining money from a broadcaster. One interviewee that made use of federal and provincial film and TV tax credits noted that a distributor or having a show air on TV is required to have access to them.<\/p>\n

However, attempting to work with a broadcaster might not work out for some. One interviewee explained how they had a deal with a broadcaster that fell through due to budget issues at the broadcaster. However, they are looking still for local or international broadcast partners. This said, even when an agreement is reached, some conditions might cause issues, in particular that of territorial limitations. An interviewee explained how they needed to remove their series from a web platform, since that platform did not have the capability of blocking access to viewers of a certain country, as stipulated through a deal with a broadcaster. Another interviewee explained how the territorial exclusivity in place due to a broadcaster agreement limits their ability to distribute and \u201cexploit\u201d the latest season of their series compared to previous seasons that did not have this exclusivity to adhere to. While such agreements and regionally-based stipulations might not be a problem for producers if they have no issues with these terms, these kinds of geographical limitation might not work well with the global nature of the Internet. Looking at the release of Dr. Horrible\u2019s Sing-Along Blog<\/em>, Leaver (2013) explains how initially, the series was only accessible in the US due to streaming partner Hulu and because the series was only available on the American iTunes store, thus causing an uproar among fans (pp. 165-166). Leaver goes on to conclude that<\/p>\n

Probably the most important lesson was that if a potential audience is spread across the globe, to maximize the impact of web media, it should aim to be available in all territories regardless of whether the release is in a free or paid format (or both) (p. 169).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is important to keep in mind the global nature of fandom and the territoriality of platforms (even web-based ones such as iTunes or Hulu) and broadcasters. However, this might turn out to be at odds with the need to monetize, as one interview subject noted, saying that \u201c\u2026 more and more, the distribution of web series is starting to look a lot like the distribution of television in that it\u2019s geo-gated to different platforms in different parts of the world.\u201d This might become a point of contention with audiences and should be kept in mind as the web series market progresses.<\/p>\n

Formats<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The web series market doesn\u2019t end with episodic shows or even online. Some of the interview subjects for this report have been keeping this in mind as they created their series. One interviewee explained that they extended the length of episodes in their second season both because of longer attention spans and because the longer episodes could be assembled into a half-hour TV format. Another interviewee explained that their series was \u201cwritten with two distributions models in mind. It was written as a movie but with act breaks every five minutes. So that it could roll out as a series or it could be packaged as a movie very seamlessly\u201d and in a way that would reduce the cost of delivering in different formats. One interview subject even used their flexible format as an upselling method, promoting a paid movie version on the web site as a way to watch the full series before it is entirely released. Keeping different formats in mind can be beneficial to monetize a series. Jonas Diamond (n.d.) of iThenic even notes that TV and movies formats should be planned for the purpose of non-North American sales (p.27).<\/p>\n

Funding and the IPF<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Publicly available sources of funding for web series do not appear to be widely established yet. In contrast to available tax credits and support for TV and film productions at federal and provincial levels, \u201cthe same thing doesn\u2019t exist for web series\u201d in spite of movements towards web ad spending and short format viewership, according to the interviewed representative of Interactive Ontario. Indeed, funds and tax credits do not appear to be widely used by Ontarian web series. According to the Nordicity (2014) report, public financing sources \u201cwere among the least common financing mechanisms for web series creators in 2013\u201d (p.18). As the Interactive Ontario representative later noted, \u201c\u2026 in order to be successful, like any industry, it needs that investment upfront to grow.\u201d Offering more of such funds and credits could help web series producers develop and expand.<\/p>\n

There are, however, some sources for publicly available funding. The most used source in Ontario, according to Nordicity\u2019s (2014) research, is the Independent Production Fund, with 18% of respondents stating that they used it for their web production (p.18). Its existence was fairly pervasive among this report\u2019s interview subjects. Four interviewees stated that they made use of the fund, one was rejected by the IPF and the remaining person explained that \u201cI learnt about [the IPF], about a week before we started production and I was like [\u2026] \u2018If only I\u2019d known\u2019.\u201d The IPF explains how they participate in production for their Web Drama Series Program as follows: \u201cInvestments will be made in the form of equity and the Fund seeks a pro rata share of recoupment of its investment and profit participation in the project and through its derivative subsidiary rights and subsequent works\u201d (\u201cWeb Drama,\u201d n.d.). This process of recoupment could be problematic when factoring the difficulty interviewees have had with monetization and profitability. Indeed, four interviewees involved on IPF-funded productions have either just partially or are expecting to partially pay back the IPF investment. If this is the case, there might be a worry of the fund not being self-sustaining. However, this doesn\u2019t appear to be the case. The fund makes use of a $34 million-valued endowment, with approximately $2 million yearly being made in interest and recoupment (\u201cFAQs,\u201d n.d.). In 2013, the IPF invested a total of $1,737,500, well within the $2 million range (\u201cStatistics,\u201d n.d.). However, even if the fund itself is sustainable, are its productions in the long run? The IPF does let previous series apply for new seasons (\u201cWeb Drama,\u201d n.d.) and their contribution couldn\u2019t quite be considered as negligible since it \u201caverage[s] between 25% to 75% of budgets of web series\u201d (\u201cFAQs,\u201d n.d.). While the argument of using a fund like an IPF to help launch and develop a new media industry sector is a valid perspective, it might be wise to avoid making access to the IPF (or comparable funds and tax credits) a monetary necessity for the viability of a web series production. A possible way to continue stimulating research into viability in the web series sector would be to change the current requirement that stipulates that non-IPF produced series cannot apply for funding to the IPF\u2019s web series program (\u201cWeb Drama,\u201d n.d.). By demonstrating some flexibility, or by creating a separate program, the IPF could invest (possibly in smaller proportions than they currently do) in existing, somewhat successful projects that are looking to either try new monetization methods or to raise production values for a new season as a way of making the series more attractive to buyers, networks and audiences. This could help stimulate the field of web series into trying new ideas while helping with longer-term sustainability.<\/p>\n

Other Sources of Funding<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There are still other sources of publicly available funding beyond the IPF. However, the ability to access them appears to be limited, according to the experiences of some of the interviewees. As noted previously, distribution can help open up funding opportunities. One interviewee complained about the few opportunities for funding without a broadcasting partner, noting that they still do hire Canadians artists for their work which they regard as the ultimate purpose of some of these programs. Indeed, looking at another fund, the Canada Media Fund, the issue rises again. One interviewee explained that they accessed the fund due to \u201ca small television component\u201d in their project. That said, another interviewee explained how they made use of CMF money, intended for experimental works, for the promotion of their project.<\/p>\n

This same project received money from the OMDC, the Ontario Media Development Corporation, due to the interactive nature of their project. The OMDC did mention, when asked what they offered in terms of funding for web series, their Interactive Digital Media Fund, which they describe as, in their email, \u201cthe centerpiece of a toolkit that also includes tax credits and the Export Fund that helps attract companies to do business in Ontario [\u2026].\u201d The interactive nature of this fund is important to note. It is described further in the fund\u2019s guidelines, noting that this interactivity should have \u201can impact on the user\u2019s experience of the content\u201d (\u201cOMDC IDM Fund Guidelines,\u201d n.d., p. 3). Similar rules for interactivity exist for the OMDC\u2019s Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit (\u201cOMDC IDM Fund Frequently,\u201d 2013, p. 4). Such interactive elements might not be of interest or be within the scope of some web series projects. Interactivity was the reason one interviewee explained that they didn\u2019t qualify for OMDC funding. Such restrictions and other expectations and requirements end up limiting the number of funding resources producers have access to for web series.<\/p>\n

Resources<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Interview subjects for this report were asked about the resources and information sources they used with regards to monetization and funding. Some noted leveraging their prior knowledge, with regards to funding or crowdfunding, for example. Experiences varied with regards to the overall availability of information on funding and monetization. One interviewee did explain how they themselves contributed to books and presented their experience in creating a web series on their website. Many mentioned calling, researching or discussing with different groups: Agencies such as the IPF (and the resources on their site), the OMDC or the CMF, aggregators, distribution platforms and the CMPA. Some mentioned that they looked at what other web series have been doing as well and one person made mention of Toronto web series community meetups as well as sessions at the Toronto Web Fest. Two people mentioned that they enlisted experts and consultants regarding monetization, platforms and sales.<\/p>\n

What did interviewees say they could have used in terms of resources? One recurring request, stated in various ways, was that of assembled resources of information. There were requests for seeing budgets of web series, information on tax credits, information on international sources of money, information regarding platforms for monetization and more. One interviewee suggested a hub for this information and another commented that \u201cIt would be very helpful for people to start pooling some more information together because we\u2019re all blind here.\u201d One interviewee mentioned looking for precedence and road maps for what to do, also suggesting that organizations representing web series could collect more data and conduct research, even at the cost of raising membership fees. This same interviewee also offered the idea of collective or batch selling of web series to platforms, such as Netflix, as well as the idea of a private company whose purpose is to find money for producers. Taking into account these suggestions could help improve the ease both of finding resources about funding and monetization and of the search for money itself.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There is still much work and much research to be done with regards to web series. Marcia Douglas, manager of the Bell Fund and consultant for the Independent Production Fund, summarizes the situation succinctly:<\/p>\n

Cold. Hard. Truth. It is highly unlikely that you will get rich making your web series. \u2026 The challenge is that there is no one clear business model as yet because the ability to exploit this type of content is deeply dependent on the audience, genre and many other factors (Douglas, n.d., p. 12).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Further and more in-depth research should be done into how successful web series have been able to monetize and the factors that have led to that success. Greater sharing of such research and of the personal experiences of web series producers with others could also help the medium collectively learn what the most effective methods of monetization are more quickly. Certain strategies such as crowdfunding and broadcaster deals are interesting avenues that some have taken but that do have their own shortcomings to keep in mind. As well, it might be wise to rethink some of the current publicly available funding methods and structures in place to further profitability and financial innovation in the sector for the sake of the web series medium\u2019s long term viability.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Footnote<\/strong><\/h3>\n

[1] This number could be considered larger, depending on one\u2019s interpretation of what is to be considered part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The Nordicity (2014) report separates from the GTA statistic the numbers for Halton Region (4%) and Peel Region (4%) (p.14). However, for example, Statistics Canada considers Mississauga, a community of Peel Region, and Oakville, a community of Halton Region, as part of Toronto\u2019s census metropolitan area (\u201cCorporate,\u201d n.d.; \u201cDestination,\u201d n.d.; \u201cFocus,\u201d 2015). This report will take an expanded view as to what is considered part of the GTA, beyond the City of Toronto.<\/p>\n

\n

References<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Canadian Web Series<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.iwcc-ciwc.org\/about\/canadian-web-series\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Christian, A. J. (2011). Fandom as industrial response: Producing identity in an independent Web series. Transformative Works and Cultures, 8<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/journal.transformativeworks.com\/index.php\/twc\/article\/view\/250\/237<\/a><\/p>\n

Christian, A. J. (2012). The Web as Television Reimagined? Online Networks and the Pursuit of Legacy Media. Journal of Communication Inquiry<\/em>, 36(4), 340-356. doi:10.1177\/0196859912462604<\/p>\n

ComScore. (2015, March 27). 2015 Canada Digital Future in Focus <\/em>[PDF Document]. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.comscore.com\/Insights\/Presentations-and-Whitepapers\/2015\/2015-Canada-Digital-Future-in-Focus<\/a><\/p>\n

Corporate Overview<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from https:\/\/www.peelregion.ca\/overview.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

Destination Halton<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.halton.ca\/cms\/One.aspx?portalId=8310&pageId=122140<\/a><\/p>\n

Diamond, J. (n.d.). Distribution Platforms. In IPF Guide: Web Series Best Practices<\/em>. (pp. 26-27). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ipf.ca\/downloads\/IPF_GuideToWebSeries_BestPractices.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, <\/em>40(4), 314-321. doi:10.1111\/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x<\/p>\n

Douglas, M. (n.d.). Financing & Budgeting. In IPF Guide: Web Series Best Practices<\/em>. (pp. 9-13). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ipf.ca\/downloads\/IPF_GuideToWebSeries_BestPractices.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

FAQs<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:\/\/ipf.ca\/resources\/faqs\/<\/p>\n

Focus on Geography Series, 2011 Census: Census metropolitan area of Toronto, Ontario<\/em>. (2015, January 8). Retrieved from http:\/\/www12.statcan.gc.ca\/census-recensement\/2011\/as-sa\/fogs-spg\/Facts-cma-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CMA&GC=535<\/a><\/p>\n

Johnson, D. (2007). Inviting Audiences In: The spatial reorganization of production and consumption in \u2018TVIII\u2019.\u00a0New Review of Film and Television Studies,\u00a05<\/em>(1), 61-80. doi:10.1080\/17400300601140183<\/p>\n

Leaver, T. (2013). Joss Whedon, Dr. Horrible, and the Future of Web Media. Popular Communication,\u00a011<\/em>(2), 160-173. doi:10.1080\/15405702.2013.779510<\/p>\n

Marx, N. (2011). \u201cThe Missing Link Moment\u201d: Web Comedy in New Media Industries. The Velvet Light Trap, <\/em>(68), 14-23. Retrieved from http:\/\/utexas.metapress.com\/content\/uv09k43778555810\/<\/a><\/p>\n

McGowan, C. (n.d.). Introduction. In IPF Guide: Web Series Best Practices<\/em>. (pp. 4-6). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.ipf.ca\/downloads\/IPF_GuideToWebSeries_BestPractices.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Nordicity. (2014, June 23). Industry Profile of the Independent Web Series Creators of Ontario<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.iwcc-ciwc.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/06\/IWCC-Industry-Profile_Final-Report-June-23.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

OMDC IDM Fund Frequently Asked Questions<\/em>. (2013, March 6). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.omdc.on.ca\/Assets\/Industry+Initiatives\/English\/Content+and+Marketing\/IDM+Fund\/OMDC+IDM+Fund-FAQ_en.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

OMDC IDM Fund Guidelines<\/em>. (n.d.) Retrieved from http:\/\/www.omdc.on.ca\/Assets\/Industry+Initiatives\/English\/Content+and+Marketing\/IDM+Fund\/OMDC+IDM+Fund-Guidelines_en.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Peirce, L. M., & Tang, T. (2012). Refashioning Television: Business Opportunities and Challenges of Webisodes. International Journal of Business and Social Science<\/em>, 3<\/em>(13), 163-171. Retrieved from http:\/\/ijbssnet.com\/journals\/Vol_3_No_13_July_2012\/19.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

Statistics<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:\/\/ipf.ca\/AR2013\/statistics\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Web Series to Watch<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:\/\/www.outwithdad.com\/category\/webseriestowatch<\/a><\/p>\n

Web Drama Series Program<\/em>. (n.d.). Retrieved from http:\/\/ipf.ca\/web-drama-series-program\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Williams, D. (2012). Web TV Series: How to make and market them<\/em> [E-reader version]. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.amazon.ca\/gp\/product\/B00994DSMA<\/a><\/p>\n

Wip: Canadian Web Series<\/em> [Web Site]. (2015). Retrieved from http:\/\/ipf.ca\/webseries\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Appendix<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Appendix A – Questions for Web Series Project<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Above: Ads seen from Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto for content on YouTube, shomi and Netflix. Note: The first version of this report was written earlier this year. Since then, there have been many changes to web series funding. For example, the Cogeco Fund has started funding web series\u00a0development\u00a0and the OMDC has changed some of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":254,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-235","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P4rCMB-3N","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=235"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/235\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":255,"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/235\/revisions\/255"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.stephanelachance.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}