Which institution would distribute our film? (Q3)

Originally, we debated whether or not our film would be for a niche audience or a mainstream. However, after researching the difference between black comedy and conventional comedy and realising our film is a conventional comedy we decided our film was for a mainstream audience. This led to the realisation that the larger film institutions would distribute our film rather than smaller ones, such as British film which usually leaves their distribution to be handled by larger American intuitions anyway ( an example being 'Working Title' and 'Universal Studios'). Also, we would need a film institution that focuses or at least has some experience with comedy genre distribution.

Horizontal integration would seem like the obvious choice as both institutions are equally respected and both have a voice within their partnership. A good examples of horizontal integration can be shown with the relationship of 'DC comics' and 'Warner Bros' in creating 'Batman Begins' (2005), 'The Dark Knight' (2008) and due to release in 2012 'The Dark Knight Rises'. One article speaks about how 'Warner Bros' saw potential in 'DC comics' and how they "will target the teen audience and feature super heroes from the DC Universe, such as Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and The Flash". Both companies had equal opportunities within one another to make profit. DC owned the rights to 'Batman' and has an already huge fan market what could ensure the film’s success. 'Warner Bros' could produce the film to such a standard that fans would not be disappointed. This 50/50 contribution from each institutions led to the result of a still surviving horizontal integration. However, if one of the two did not offer the 50% contribution then I am certain this conglomerate partnership would be vertical. Baring this in mind, I have realised our institutions is not already large like these two and therefore has little to offer. In conclusion, a horizontal integration partnership would be a near impossible task for small, British based institutions, unless with another British based institution which in return wouldn’t promise profit.

As we are not an American institution the chances of our film being a success without the help of an America distributor is very unlikely. This partnership of a British based institution with the help of American based one can be shown through 'Working Title'. After 'Working Title's' hit film 'Four Weddings and a Funeral' (1994) making a profit of £244 million worldwide, Americas 'Universal Studios' bought a share of the institution and in returns funds them up to £35 million for each production.

 The partnership has made over 95 films to date but at the price of 'Universal Studios' owning now 67% of the British institution. This is a success story of a good long lasting vertical integration conglomerate partnership.

However, this will not always be the case shown from the famous 'Pixar' vs 'Disney' split. Both being American based institutions; both being masters of animation. 'Pixar' was founded in 1986 and was originally a low budget institution nearly ruined due to lack of funds. After a new investor the institution released a few short films such as 'Tin Toy' (1988) and started being recognised for its possibilities. Directed by John Lasseter (an ex-employee of 'Disney', previously fired for his wild, 3D animated picture length dreams), Pixar released 'Toy Story' (1995) grossing over $40 million its first weekend. 'Toy Story' was largely funded by 'Disney' who joined during 1992 after seeing some potential in the new 3D animation software. 'Toy Story' and films that followed such as 'A Bug's Life' (1997) wouldn't have been successful without the help of 'Disney'.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Pixar Animation Studios Inc. said Thursday it ended talks with Walt Disney Co. to extend a five-picture deal for Disney to distribute Pixar films.
Pixar, the computer animation pioneer founded by Apple Computer Inc.'s Steve Jobs -- and the maker of the hit "Finding Nemo" -- said it would begin talks with other companies to distribute its films starting in 2006. "After ten months of trying to strike a deal with Disney, we're moving on," Pixar CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. "We've had a great run together -- one of the most successful in Hollywood history -- and it's a shame that Disney won't be participating in Pixar's future successes."
The move was a clear setback to Disney, which reaped a financial and critical bonanza from the partnership and has struggled with its own strategy for animation.
Disney said Pixar's final offer would have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars from the existing distribution deal and was not sweet enough going forward.
"Although we would have enjoyed continuing our successful collaboration under mutually acceptable terms, Pixar understandably has chosen to go its own way to grow as an independent company," Disney Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner said in a statement.

The article goes on to say the reason they split: "Pixar had complained that the terms of the distribution deal were tilted too heavily in Disney's favour". This showed to me that even good vertical integration, conglomerates can split due to both institutions not backing and meeting the other's demands regarding distribution. Though the partnership has since been restored it is now a horizontal integration partnership. 'Disney' suffered major losses and has come to terms that 2D animation (the art they specialize in) has become obsolete and without 'Pixar' as a partner 'Disney' could face its doom.

7 minutes and 30 seconds into this clip (taken from the documentary 'The Pixar Story') also explains the split of conglomerates from 'Pixar' and 'Disney' workers that was involved within the argument.

This split taught me that one partner would have to be submissive for the distribution process and as we are a British based institution that partner would have to be us.

This self-taught submissive rule leads me back to the 'Working Title' relationship with 'Universal Studios'. The submissive 'Working Title' is now a huge institution and has flourished, releasing films of the same genre as us with the distribution help of 'Universal' such as 'Ali G' (2002). 'Universal Studios' also realises many of its own comedy films such as 5 time award winning '40year old virgin' (2005). This would lead me to the conclusion that due to their expertise in vertical integration partnership our institution 'Emerald Productions' would team up with 'Universal Studios'. In return we would most likely be giving them a large percent of our institution ownership.

What potential opportunities could 'Universal Studios' offer our institutions?

Now, the best chance of not just our film being a success but also our institution's, would be by teaming up with 'Universal.' I have researched a short list of possible profit growing opportunities. 'Universal Studios' owns its own theme park; any film that grows a large public interest usually gains its own ride, shop, arcade or park lane named after it. Each of these would grow a potential market for our DVD sales and also interest for a possible sequel for our film. Also, 'Universal' has a large range of merchandise, not just sold within its theme park boundaries, but all across the western world. Merchandise for our film could vary from toys/figurines to shirts with possible memorable quotes from the film. 'Universal' has knowledge regarding the British market shown by 'Working Titles' success. This helpful feature will put out film in the best cinemas in Britain such as the 'Odeon' and possible 'Multiplexes' in America.