The sad truth is, it does not really matter how good a movie is, if the marketing is bad and nobody will see it. It’s the marketing that seeds awareness.
“There are many traditional avenues, from press releases and print advertising, from flier to poster distribution to Facebook and Google advertising.” (p.125 Filmmaking for Change)
With the growth of the Internet it is easy to reach people, but it is necessary to map out a strategy and be ready to execute it.
Print Ad Campaign:
The use of print ads has declined in recent years, particularly in the indie film space. The simple reason is they are very expensive, especially if you are talking about a leading paper in a major metropolitan area. Another possibility is targeted magazine ads. These can be very targeted, reaching a very specific demo.
Press Releases:
If you can manage to get editorial coverage in papers where your film will be released, you can reduce your print ad spend. This coverage helps generate awareness for the film, which should pick up momentum over the life of your run, and you can add to your website, which helps to give some teeth and credibility to your project.
TV/ Radio
It can really help to work with a publicist in this area, as they have the relationships with this media, and they can talk the talk. If you can’t afford a publicist, do your press release research and reach out to local stations.
Social Networks
Not only is it free to use, but there are numerous ways to incorporate social networking into your campaign, from Facebook to Twitter, blogs to special interest groups, Instagram to Pinterest. It is no longer necessary to feel to pay to push information to the consumer, as long as you can find a way to get your information to the consumer. Help them find you. Have a presence where your target audience likes to hang out.
Film Festivals
From a marketing standpoint, you should see festivals as opportunities to generate awareness for your movie, in terms of general screenings and subsequent word of mouth, as well as the PR value you could get from potential coverage in local media.
Special interest groups
Chances are, there is a subject in your film that connects to a cause. There are probably also organizations or groups who stand for that cause, engage with these people. After all you are bringing their issue to light and should want to power of film to make a difference. Help them help you.
Partners
Whether you have strategic alliances with partners, product placement, or sponsorship, think creatively about how they can help you spread the word about your release.
Key Art
Most movies have a title treatment, a creative presentation of the name in the movie. It will also be important to pull a few of the best stills. Sometimes, if you are planning ahead in pre-production, you have a still photographer taking pictures during the shoot. All festivals require at least one still for their website and program, and media will ask for stills and artwork to support articles. Think of your film as a company itself. If you were branding your company, you would need to develop a logo, and a look, maybe even a tagline. This combination of materials becomes part of the marketing plan as you brand your film, from your poster to your website. There needs to be consistency, these materials give you a professional look, and sense of production value.
Website
Your Website must be an active marketing vehicle, with all the standard social media icons. Share, share, share, share.
Press Kit
A press kit is a collection of materials, they are traditionally handed out on special screenings and often sent to media, industry and distributors. There is usually a Press Kit found on film websites as well. These things are usually found in such kits: a one liner, synopsis, production notes, a director statement, cast and crew list, list of festival appearances and awards, copies of press coverage, still photos and the link to the trailer.
Trailer
Sharing the trailer has become a key piece of marketing. Trailer creation is an art form, and it takes more then slamming a few key scenes and moments together.
In the last years I became more aware of the impacts everything we purchase has on the natural environment, the people who make these products and us consumers.
It is as easy as ever to buy new things and throw old ones out, being surrounded by advertising in our everyday lives. Making a lot of us feel like we need new products which fit a certain lifestyle or we just want it because it is trendy or makes us feel like we belong. But did you ever think about who made the stuff you buy?
What resources were needed to produce it?
What impact it has on the planet and on people during its whole life cycle from the very beginning of the production cycle to the very end?
I started to think about this a lot lately. To find out more I had a conversation with Sigrid Bürstmayr and Lucia Jarosova to find out more. Sigrid is working and teaching the field of sustainable design at the University of applied sciences FH JOANNEUM in Austria, and Lucia is the co-founder of the womenswear label We Are Not Sisters. www.wearenotsisters.com
As an example for consumerism, I used the fashion industry.
After I had the conversation with Sigrid and Lucia, I also interviewed the founders of three businesses, which in my eyes lead with a positive example when it comes to sustainability:, Palm & Pine skincare, Flow Surf Co. and Sand & Palm. Before getting into the conversations with the three business founders, lets see what I found out in the conversation with Sigrid & Lucia.
AN INTRODUCTION TO CLOTHING PRODUCTION
Not that long ago, we used to make clothes out of available materials from our area, like linen, cotton, wool, silk. Then, with technical development, we started mixing those natural fabrics with chemical substances for a better feel and look. Both natural and synthetic fibers are valued for different reasons in the textile industry, as both types have their pros and cons. For example, artificial fibers have benefits including greater comfort, dyeing capabilities, water resistance, abrasion resistance, antimicrobial properties, and lower costs, even though the true costs are questionable. Adding synthetic fibers into a natural one can improve the performance of the textile. Innovators developed synthetic fabrics to overcome some of the inherent limitations of natural fibers (cotton and linens wrinkle, silk requires delicate handling, and wool shrinks). The industry began creating and using synthetic fibers as cheaper and more easily mass-produced alternatives to natural fibers.
Nowadays a lot of the clothes on the market are made out of polyester. Have you ever wondered what polyester is?
Polyester, or also called polyethylene terephthalate, is derived from a chemical reaction involving petroleum, air, and water. Petroleum is also called crude oil and, it is a fossil fuel, which means , so that your polyester clothes are made out of oil. Oil can be found in underground reservoirs and in tar sands near the earth’s surface. It can be accessed by drilling, on land or at sea, or by strip mining. Once extracted the oil is transported to refineries via supertanker, truck, train, or pipeline to be transformed into usable fuels such as gasoline, propane, kerosene, jet fuel and products such as plastics. Drilling for oil disrupts wildlife, air and water pollution hurt local communities, the emissions contribute to the climate change, the oil and gas development ruins pristine landscapes and oil spills can be disastrous on the wildlife in its area. Like the deepwater horizon oil spill from 2010, it is considered to be the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry and one of the largest environmental disasters in American history.
https://images.app.goo.gl/7jhi7Moa6HkYnRxm8
Besides the fact that the making of polyester is bad for the environment, oil based clothes produce micro plastic which scientists not only findfound in sea animals but also in our human bodies.
https://images.app.goo.gl/VRcchwuhB1gpLNW28A dead young albatross on the Midway Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. You can see more of photographer Chris Jordan’s work on the effects of plastics on seabirds at The Picture Show.
But also non organic cotton also has its problems, as the example of the Aral Sea shows. The Aral Sea was once the world’s fourth largest lake, home to 24 species of fish and surrounded by fishing communities, lush forests and wetlands. The unsustainable fashion industry is linked to the horror of the dictatorships and the environmental devastation of the Aral Sea as which dried up because the cotton crop was grown with the river water. One cotton shirt can use up to 2700 liters of water.
Conventional cotton (as opposed to organic cotton) uses a huge amount of water and pesticides which cause 350,000 farmer deaths a year and a million hospitalizations.
https://images.app.goo.gl/4fJ6QTHDD4DbsJis8
Also garment workers for most fast fashion companies are treated extremely poorly, they are often being forced to work 14 to 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. During peak season, they may work until 2 or 3 am to meet the fashion brand’s deadline. Their basic wages are extremely low. The collapse of the Rana Plaza in 2013, in which 1134 garment workers were killed, has revealed the unacceptable working conditions of the fast fashion industry to the world.
https://images.app.goo.gl/NvKmdz5wf9eJbU2Q8
150 billion pieces of clothing are produced every year, 20% of those go unsold. To bring this in perspective we are 7.8 billion people living on earth, and we are adding 150 billion garment peaces a year to the once which already exist. 82 782 000 000 kg used and unused clothes end up in landfills each year, another big amount gets burned.
What can we do to avoid environmental disasters and unethical treatment?
THINK BEFORE YOU BUY
1.) Do you really need something new?
2.) Can you fix what you already own instead of buying something new?
3.) Can you buy it second hand or borrow it instead?
4.) Is the company you are buying from eco friendly and ethical?
5.) Is the company you are buying from transparent with what they are doing and not just greenwashing?
What are sustainable brands?
Sustainable brands are ones that have a meaning or purpose that goes beyond making money. They instead seek to increase the wellbeing of humanity and all life on our planet. It does not see people as consumers and it understands the lifecycle and environmental impact of all its activities, so that it can seek to continuously innovate and reduce its impact to a minimum.
I had conversations with the founders of the following three brands about their businesses and core values. In my opinion, they set a positive example on how to follow your dream of your own business, being environmental conscious with it and trying to educate others on problems the natural environment is facing.
PALM & PINE
It all started with a dream for a plastic and chemical free sunscreen with a stylish packaging. As the founder of Palm & Pine, Sarah Muir moved to Portugal and adapted a new beach lifestyle it meant two things for her – she needed good sunscreen and wanted to protect the ocean. She gave some natural sunscreens a try but didn’t like what she found. Thick, white formulas in plastic packaging.
So the idea for creating her own sunscreen arose and the first batch of sunscreen was created by Sarah’s husband in their kitchen. They got to work on creating the products that they couldn’t find.
Imagined on a beach in Portugal and developed in Cyprus, . Palm & Pine is of European origins with a mission to be loved worldwide.
What’s different about Palm and Pine? Standard sunscreens contain chemical UV filters and fragrances, packaged in plastic with pumps and sprays, producing plastic waste. That is bad for us humans and bad for our natural world.
All the products Palm & Pine offers are ocean friendly, from the cream itself to the packaging. No greenwashing and no harm to the ocean is made. Zero-plastic packaging. Recycled, recyclable, and reusable. Soon Palm & Pine sunscreen will be available worldwide. www.palmpineskincare.com .
FLOW SURF CO.
Inspired by the ocean and After years of traveling and working in different countries, Flow Surf Co. came to life. Flow Surf Co. is a passionate, environmentally conscious surf brand founded by Josh Ramsey. With his company, he Josh is aiming to be more than just a clothing range, but also a platform and community to help educate surfers, provide support for ocean activists and put the welfare of the planet and the people before profits.
The products life cycle :
Flow Surf Co. is leading by example in the battle against climate change by being eco-conscious at every stage. Their products are made out of organic cotton which is better for the producers and the ecosystem in which it is produced. Cotton is still a thirsty plant so the fields that grow the organic cotton for their products are located in the North of India, where the monsoons fill reservoirs that supply almost all the water needed.
In the processing, every part of the plant is used, what cant be used for clothes is turned into cow food or vegetable oil, no waste.
The products are made in a factory where the spinning, dyinge, weaving, cutting and sewing are integrated. Vertical integration leads to cost savings which can be reinvested in the facilities. This means that the environment is clean, light, modern and positive, like the Teemill factory in the UK where the apparel is printed.
Throughout the supply chain, renewable energy is used. The UK Teemill owns a solar farm and power manufacturing operations with renewables. In India, the factory owns two wind farms and a 150kw PV array. All products are real-time printed which means products are only printed after they have been ordered – no waste. Done with wearing your clothes? You can send them back to the Teemill factory where they make new products from the material they recover, the cycle itself is renewable. The products can be returned and remade again and again and again.
Packaging:
It is estimated that by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. Instead of plastic packaging, a rip and splash-proof mailer bag made out of paper is used, which also can be recycled.
Tree planting:
Besides looking out for the environment during production, Flow Surf Co. also partnered up with Ecologi to form a climate positive workforce. Ecologi plants trees and funds the worlds best climate crisis solutions. Each month, regardless of sales, tree planting is funded and projects that remove tonnes of CO2e, purely to offset their own carbon footprint at Flow Surf Co.
On top of their monthly tree planting, they also add more impact to each sale. Every sale contributes and each item sold plants one tree. The trees are planted in clumps of 25 trees + removing 0.5 tonnes of C02. Each time 25 items are sold a clump of 25 trees is purchased and Offset Earth plants these in the forest Flow Surf co. is supporting at that time, currently Madagascar.
Want to know more about the products of Flow Surf Co. or read their blog? Check out the website https:// flowsurfco.com or stay up to date by following their Instagram @flowsurfco.
SAND & PALM
After years of traveling to different surf destinations around the world and having designed swimwear for various companies, the idea for Sand & Palm arose. Vicki, the founder of Sand & Palm, has had the dream of creating her own brand for some time already, combining her artworks with her passion for surfing and the natural environment.
Sand & Palm offers beautifully designed swim and beachwear with a great fit, handmade by the founder herself in her studio, based in Cornwall, UK. With a focus on sustainability, Vicki sources environmentally friendly materials and uses production methods of the highest quality and standard.
The swimwear is made from lycra, which is made from regenerated ghost fishing nets and post consumer plastic waste. Lycra is a sustainable fabric, made of a ECONYL® regenerated Nylon that turns waste problems into fashion and interior solutions. It is versatile, hyper-resistant, thin, elegant, stretchy, soft and breathable: a unique mix of muscular compression and comfort. It is twice as resistant to chlorine, suntan creams and oils than other fabrics.
For Vicki, fabrics are a canvas for her artworks and illustrations, all designs are exclusive to the brand. The fabrics are digitally printed at an UK based company. Digital printing is one of the most eco-friendly methods, as it produces minimal waste.
The beachwear out of hemp is dyed using sustainably sourced natural plant dyes. It is then either screen printed using plant based inks, or hand painted using the same.
Sand & Palms mission is it to maintain a high level of environmental and social responsibility in all areas. Only non-harmful materials and production processes are used. By using sustainable and responsible materials, Sand & Palm aims to increase awareness of the importance of protecting the environment and people against the harmful impacts of mass clothing production.
Human activities are damaging the health of oceans in profound ways. Global warming, overfishing and pollution are threatening aquatic ecosystems, and a number of species face extinction.
PLASTIC POLLUTION
In simple terms, plastic pollution refers to plastic waste being found where it shouldn’t. In the context of oceans, this is anywhere. Still, according to estimates, an additional 8 million items of plastic enter the ocean each day. In total, almost 300,000 tonnes of plastic can be found in the oceans, and the weight of plastic is predicted to exceed the weight of all populations of ocean-dwelling fish by 2050.
The majority of the plastic comes from littering – from the fishing industry, waste left on beaches, rivers and in drains, among other things. Poorly managed landfill waste sites and industry discharges also contribute significantly. Despite the indisputable impact on marine life, the oil industry (one of the biggest sources of plastic pollution) is increasing its plastic production. Currently, the demand for plastics requires 12 million barrels of oil per day for manufacturing. By 2050, this figure is predicted to increase to 50 million barrels of oil per day due to rising demands.
The durability of plastic makes the environmental issue more pressing. Indeed, the US Environmental Protection Agency has stated that all plastic ever created likely still exists. The impact of this can especially be seen at the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the largest collection of plastic waste in the world with an area of almost 700,000 square miles and growing every day.
This has a huge toll on aquatic species. In the North Pacific alone, it is estimated that fish are ingesting up to 24,000 tonnes of plastic every year. This affects the wider food web and, ultimately, humans. A 2015 study for the Scientific Reports journal found that around a quarter of all fish in Californian and Indonesian fish markets contained plastic microfibres.
Fish are not the only species at risk from plastic pollution. It is estimated that as much as 99 per cent of all seabird species will have ingested some form of plastic by the year 2050. Additionally, sea turtles and monk seals are at risk of mistaking plastic debris for food. Indeed, an increasing number of ocean animals are found dead or entangled as a result of plastic waste, with estimates suggesting that around 100,000 marine mammals are killed each year.
A further concern for plastic pollution is that clean-up operations can be very hard to execute effectively. Plastic accounts for between 60 to 90 percent of all marine debris, but only 1 per cent of all marine debris floats. This makes extracting it a costly and difficult task.
CORAL REEF DEGRADATION
https://images.app.goo.gl/HPCvDpZ6FQAq2PaE8
The destruction of coral reefs has been increasing at alarming rates in the last decade, with a third of all corals in danger of extinction. Coral reefs are important for maintaining diverse marine environments, as they provide nourishment and shelter for many aquatic species. Conserving coral reefs is also important for human populations around the world, with many areas dependent on the livelihood provided by corals (such as fisheries and tourism).
A number of anthropogenic influences are responsible for the ongoing coral reef crisis. The main culprit is climate change. Warming ocean temperatures are responsible for nearly 50 per cent of coral destruction and reef bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef. Reef bleaching refers to the loss of vibrant colour from coral organisms as a result of changing water conditions. It is possible for corals to recover from bleaching, but a bleached coral reef is more susceptible to disease and may indicate impending death.
Dynamite fishing is also responsible for the degradation of coral reef ecosystems. The use of cyanide to stun and capture fish has a devastating impact on coral polyps as they are unable to metabolize the poison. This practice of fishing is commonly practiced in Indonesia and the Philippines, two countries considered hotbeds of coral reef populations.
Other anthropogenic factors that damage coral reefs are irresponsible tourism and sedimentation. An increase in coral reef tourism has seen a tantamount rise in reef mismanagement, where tourists often damage reefs by stepping on them or inadvertently touching them. Tourism boats vessels used for exploration trips or recreational activities are also damaging reefs through the misplacement of anchors and reckless route planning. Sedimentation refers to the transfer of harmful particles from land surfaces to the ocean. It is caused by increased urbanisation, land use change and coastal mining. The increase in ocean sediment has led to diminished sunlight and nourishment for coral reefs.
In this ted talk cinematographer and director Paul Atkins talks about storytelling from the heart vs. from the mind. And the different effects it has on the viewers. He especially talks about environmental film making and how different images and different kinds of storytelling have different impacts.
„Humanity faces environmental challenges on every level from local to global. Human population growth and human activities are negatively affecting the ecological process that support life as we all know it, and the effect of these changes on human well-being will be profound. Recent quantitative assessments of the human impact on nature give a sobering picture; the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that about 60% of the earth’s ecosystem services are being used unsustainably. Using ecological footprint methodology, the Global Footprint Network has calculated that humanity’s load on the biosphere is about 150% of earth’s capacity, up from 70% in 1961. These trends result from individual behavior patterns as well as from the societal infrastructure constituted by our institutions, governance systems, and ways of interacting. At staked are two inextricably linked sets of values: concern for the present and the future quality of human lives and care about the vitality of the biosphere and its other inhabitants.“ (Conservation Psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature, second edition, Susan Clayton and Gene Myers, 2015, p.1)
“Conservation Psychology is defined as the use of psychological techniques and research to understand and promote a healthy relationship between humans and the natural environment.“ (Indirect quote, Conservation Psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature, second edition, Susan Clayton and Gene Myers, 2015, p.2)
„Conservation Psychology seeks to direct rigorous research toward the goal of sustainability and the rely on the results of that research to make recommendations about specific techniques.“ (Conservation Psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature, second edition, Susan Clayton and Gene Myers, 2015, p.2)
„The environmental crisis is the epochal challenge of our times. In the long view, the very survival of human civilization is at stake, as also of the ecosystem that sustain countless other species. Yet to most of us, this is an invisible crisis. „ John A. Duvall
It is important that people get informed and educated about environmental issues. One way of helping to save the environment is environmental conservation work.
What is conservation?
Conservation mostly refers to the preservation and maintenance of nature. The term conservation is used for the safeguarding of animals, plants and natural habitats.
The wide definition of conservation is widely understood, but there are also more intricate meanings that can be extrapolated from the term.
Ecological Restoration
One of the main parts of conservation is the restoration of ecosystems. Typically, ecological restoration projects are introduced to counteract and hold harmful development. This is done in a number of different ways, such as reintroduction and rewilding. Reintroduction refers to a scenario where measures are put in place to recover a declining species in an area where they once thrived but have been detrimentally impacted by human development. Rewilding, on the other hand, refers to the restoration of entire landscapes, such as the large-scale plantation of native plant species. The main aim of restoration ecology is to create, maintain, and revive biodiverse habitats.
Sustainable Development
There are many overlaps in the definitions of sustainable development and conservation. A Brundtland Commission report in the late 1980s notably defined sustainable development as progress and advancement that meets the needs of the present, whilst also taking into account the capability of future generations to meet their own needs.
For many sustainable development is seen as a form of conservation. By securing the needs of future generations, it will be essential to conserve vital resources. Also, it is often suggested that conservation cannot exist outside of a societal and economical context.
Sustainable Consumption
Sustainable consumption is an important part of conservation and is one that involves careful monitoring, planning and strategizing.
The thought behind sustainable consumption is that it is okay to consume or use different species, providing that it is not harmful to the environment and does not contribute to a decline in the species population levels. Various eco labels exist throughout the world to indicate which products are environmentally preferable and, thus, more likely to be beneficial in conservation.
Animal Welfare
Another key part of conservation is animal welfare. A lot of human activities are damaging and can cause suffering to animal species. In recent years, a growing body of literature supports the notion that wildlife conservation and welfare are intrinsically linked, though not all within the respective fields are in agreement.
There are some conservationists who believe that animal welfare does not fall within the pool of conservation. There are many conservation projects that involve the death of animals. Deer culling, for example, is practiced in many locations throughout the world in order to maintain the health of forest ecosystems and prevent the spread of disease, which can occur when deer population density becomes too high. The emotional and caring aspect of animal welfare does not always align with the practical necessities of conservation.
Captive Breeding
Captive breeding is a contentious topic within the field of conservation. Because of the fact that it is no longer possible to maintain all species in their natural habitat, many conservationists promote the preservation and breeding of these species in captivity. This is mostly carried out in zoos, conservation parks, aquariums and botanic gardens.
A successful example of captive breeding is the Arabian oryx, which was reintroduced in Oman in 1982 after being hunted to extinction a decade earlier. A captive breeding initiative had been started in 1962 at the Phoenix Zoo, Arizona, who had grown their captive oryx population from nine to over 200. After several reintroductions across the Arabian Peninsula, Arabian oryx populations grew to over 1,000 in the wild. Unfortunately, the species is at risk again due to renewed hunting and capturing.
Despite these successes, some conservationists believe that captive breeding goes against the principles of conservation and that some species should be allowed to become extinct as nature takes its course. This is problematic, though, as deciding which species should be saved is a difficult task. Almost all endangered animal species are either directly or indirectly harmed by human activity.
Conservation Research
The research carried out in the field provides vital information and direction for conservation projects, and it can also help to prioritize and inform the best possible actions. This research usually involves species monitoring, the development of new conservation methods, identifying issues within an ecosystem, and tracking endangered species.
The focus of research is driven by a number of different factors, including academic interests, funding, and public opinion. The latter has played a big role in the conservation of sharks throughout the world. Shark populations have been declining for a number of decades due to fishing, climate change, habitat degradation, and pollution.
Yet, despite this, the public perception of sharks is that they are an animal to be feared due to the documentation of numerous shark attacks in the public domain. Many scientists believe that this public perception has impeded the progress of shark conservation efforts in the past. In recent years a changing perception of sharks has been observed in the public eye, now sharks are increasingly observed as a vital species for the conservation of aquatic ecosystems, as opposed to vicious and predatory hunters. According to a 2011 report in the Marine and Freshwater Research journal, this public opinion shift has greatly infuenced research in shark conservation. Most importantly, increased funding for research has become available. This, coupled with an increase in willing research participants, has improved and greater informed shark conservation.
Source:
COE conservation diplom course
The Environmental Documentary, Cinema Activists in the 21st century
Conservation Psychology, Understanding and promoting human care for nature
TIPPS for green filmmaking ( a more environmentally friendly production)
Transport:
Only use as many vehicles as needed
Try to transport as many people in one car as possible
If possible use cars with a low emission rate (easy to do when you rent cars for the shoot)
Minimize the trips
Plan and organize the trips beforehand so unnecessary trips can be avoided
Energy saving:
Try to get energy from renewable sources
If possible use photovoltaic kits
Do not leave electrical devices on if not needed
Avoid the use of halogen, incandescent or fluorescent lights. They use a lot of electricity and therefore have a higher negative effect on the environment and have a higher electricity cost. Use LED lights instead.
Accommodation:
If the crew and or actors need an accommodation during the shooting days try to find a location close to the set
Catering:
Provide drinking water and other drinks in big containers with reusable bottles or cups for each person on set
Use reusable plates & cutlery
Serve environmental friendly food/ low on animal products/ regional products
If possible go to restaurants, because of the waste management
Material selection:
Use recycled materials
Use thrifted set decoration
Reuse materials
Reduce to a minimum paper based communication
Waste management:
Use different bins for different waste
Recycle
Example:
The Vienna based film studio Das Rund already sets a good example for sustainable film production. https://dasrund.com
This is what they say on their website about sustainable film production:
For us, as a creative house, sustainability is a matter of the heart. It is our own responsibility to set concrete guidelines and to keep improving. We follow our principles on set, as well as in our office, and in our bar. Receiving the Austrian eco-label as the first commercial production company proved to us that we are on the right way. However, we are already thinking about the next steps to achieve even better results for our one and only planet Earth.
Das Rund green producing efforts:
Mobility
Our vehicle fleet is gradually being converted to e-cars and scooters.
We travel by train instead of flying whenever possible.
Food
Purchasing food for our employees in the office: regional and in reusable bottles.
We provide detailed guidelines for our catering partners (regional products, no plastic).
Bio Kistl from Admah
Water
We use water gallons and recyclable bottles instead of PET.
Styling
We preferably style loaned or second hand.
If we need to buy clothes for a shooting, they will be donated afterwards to our neighbors BABÄM, whose proceeds go to the children’s village.
Recycling
Recycling on set and in office goes without saying.
Paper: we only use 100% recycled paper. In general, as little as possible is printed, we prefer digitalization.
Detergents and hygienic paper with ISO type 1 eco label
Just like in the last weeks, an audience watched an environmental documentary and answered a couple of questions after they finished watching. In this weeks entry I am also going to summarize the results of all four films and show data I had gathered in another questionnaire.
The audience is upwards from 20 years, from different countries in Europe, with different backgrounds and genders. The same audience watched all four films which I introduced in the second entry.
Below are the results of the fourth weeks film.
The results shall help documentary filmmakers reach their audience better and get greater results in spreading their message.
How did the audience perceive Kiss the ground?
After the participators watched the film they filled out a questionnaire. I did go through the answered questionnaires and summarized the answers, the results are shown below.
All viewers stated that they were interested in the topic and almost everybody had already informed themselves about this topic.
What they liked about the film:
That they show a simple way to help with climate change
It’s a different and often unheard approach to combat climate change. It was quite optimistic
The approached was good, the topic of climate change without solely focusing on renewable energy sources.
A lot of views on the topic, a lot of facts
It gave an actual sound solution
Everyone of the viewers thought that the topic was represented well.
65% of the viewers built a connection to somebody or something in the film.
Everybody stated that they want to research the film more.
What questions or thoughts came up?
Why do the states support such big farms?
It has raised thoughts, how to implement the new found knowledge without a garden
The most interesting point was the possibility of no till farming styles
It was less doomsday on the coming future and there might actually be a chance
What was memorable?
The revegetation of parched farmland
The pesticides they used where also used in world war two in the gas chambers
The scale of the entire mass industrialized farming styles. It is difficult to grasp the size and scale of agriculture.
The satellite imagery of how landscapes are severely modified by fields and the process of farming. However on the contrary, the capability of nature to recover and rebound after such massive soil erosion, i.e. Loess Plateau, China.
That cows and live stock cab actually help with regeneration and not build a part of the problem.
What message did they take from the film?
plant a lot of trees
Soil science is deeply a deeply overlooked part of the carbon cycle, which we as a species rely on still most people do not understand it.
Things can change for the better
Every field can be saved
Do you think about where your food comes from and how it is made when you buy it?
Everybody answered this questions with yes
If you are not already checking where your food comes from, will you now?
Everybody answered this questions with yes
https://youtu.be/KyQYYLsXhqc
Conclusion of the answers of the four films and second questionnaire:
The information I gathered from the question results showed, what the people still remember after watching the film, what they liked and disliked about them. All four films were about environmental issues. Still they were all different and also perceived differently.
The main protagonist of the first film Mission Blue was scientist Silvia Earle, the second weeks protagonist of an inconvenient sequel was politician Al Gore. The questionnaire revealed that the audience had a lot more trust in a scientist than in a politician. Scientific facts were overall wished in every film and a variety of scientific facts made the viewer trust the message more.
A call to action and examples for resolutions are important, especially for films like this wich are about an environmental issue. Since the films are supposed to not only tell people about the problems but also make them a part of a positive change.
Shocking pictures seemed to stay in mind the best. „A new study suggests that we recall bad memories more easily and in greater detail than good ones for perhaps evolutionary reasons.
Researchers say negative emotions like fear and sadness trigger increased activity in a part of the brain linked to memories. These emotionally charged memories are preserved in greater detail than happy or more neutral memories, but they may also be subject to distortion.“
“These benefits make sense within an evolutionary framework,” writes researcher Elizabeth Kensinger of Boston College in a review of research on the topic in Current Directions in Psychological Science. “It is logical that attention would be focused on potentially threatening information.”
With each film I asked if the viewers did built an emotional connection. „An investigation of autobiographical memories found that positive memories contained more sensorial and contextual details than neutral or negative memories (which didn’t significantly differ from each other in this regard). This was true regardless of individual’s personal coping styles.
Emotionally charged events are remembered better
Pleasant emotions are usually remembered better than unpleasant ones
Positive memories contain more contextual details (which in turn, helps memory)
In fact did the results of the questionnaire show that people remembered shocking moments best and moments where they felt positive emotions and a connection to someone or something in the film.
The second questionnaire was answered by people in northern, central and south America, Australia, Asia and Europe, ages 20-65.
Where do people get most of their information from, where should films be promotet to get the needed attention?
Why do people like to watch documentaries?
To gain information about topics and learn something new.
Have they watched a documentary which inspired them? Did it lead to an action?
From the answers I gathered from this question it turns out that documentaries can really inspire people to change something in their lives.
Some became activists because of documentaries they watched, others changed their lifestyle after watching a documentary and some were even inspired to choose their University major because of documentaries they watched on a specific topic before.
What do people like to see in a documentary?
Would they like further information about a topic they just watched?
How long do they watch before they skip? How important is the beginning of a film?
The older generations 50+ stated that they need longer than two minutes, mostly 5-10min.
The younger generations, form early 20s to early 30s all stated that it takes them no longer than five minutes to decide if they want to watch a film, most of them not longer than two minutes.
Under which criteria is a film selected? What needs to be especially good to bring people to watch a film?
Just like in the last weeks, an audience watched an environmental documentary and answered a couple of questions after they finished watching.
The audience is upwards from 20 years, from different countries in Europe, with different backgrounds and genders. The same audience will watch all four films which I introduced in the second entry.
Below are the results of the third weeks film.
The results shall help documentary filmmakers reach their audience better and get greater results in spreading their message.
How did the audience perceive Cowspiracy?
After the participators watched the film they filled out a questionnaire. I did go through the answered questionnaires and summarized the answers, the results are shown below.
All the viewers were interested in the topic, most of them had informed themselves about the topic at some time before.
What they liked about the film:
The topic itself, the issue portrayed
The independent research
The brutal honestly this film has, it’s much better compared to most other films
The fact that Kip Andersen was always very persistent in his questions. He did not let himself be dissuaded from his intention and was able to uncover some important things.
There were a lot of facts in the film. How these facts were prepared was sometimes a bit too much or confusing
What they did not like about the film:
The traget group seems to be people who are already vegans and focus on a sustainable lifestyle
A lot of scenes were not filmed well, they were often really overexposed
It was represented as if everything is bad
Did they think it was one sided?
the interviewer seemed biased
The story seemed bent to one side
To little counterargument
Was represented well
They did not try to get the other side, they wanted to bring across their side
It was represented well, but more for the American region
More than one side was shown, but nothing positive about farming
Did they build a connection to anybody in the film?
To Howard who had been sued for telling the truth on Oprah
No, found the presenter obnoxious
To the topic itself
In general to the activists for example Dorothy Stang
Are they planning to research the topic more after having watched this film?
Already researched enough
Only if it comes up
No, the film already told informed about everything important
Yes
What questions or thoughts came up?
moved the viewer towards anger
film has highlighted the struggle of an ever increasing population
That we live in a huge consumer society without a second thought
The facts in the film are all very much related to America, it would be interesting to see how that applies to the European region.
What was memorable?
Howard and the scene of a so called organic dairy farm where you could clearly see the cows udder bleeding
Deforestation
The interview with the executive committee of Green Peace
When Kip Andersen realizes that it is really dangerous to research and make a film about this topic. There are a lot people, which already gave or risked their lives. It is scary, that people, which want to change something for the good, are threatened or even killed.
The pictures from mass captivity, such pictures should not stand as a symbol for farming, not everything is bad
What message did they take from the film?
That nothing can ever be fair as long as one side has all the money in the world and the other side only the truth
The possibility of drastic environmental improvements and reduction of a major source of greenhouse gas can be possible by removing meat from our diets. However good the argument is, there is no possibility that a dramatic change in diet across the globe could occur. Let alone the damage to culture, cuisine and economies based on this.
Don’t trust any environment organizations
everybody should eat less meat
Farming is bad, cows are bad for the environment
Nobody of the viewers is vegan themselves.
If you are not living a vegan lifestyle, did this information shock you, are you planning to change your food and consumption habits?
It did not shock me concerning the animal treatment. I already am very conscious of my food and where it comes from.
I’m conscious of the source and quality of the food which I consume. I’m also a great believer of animal welfare for the meat products I consume. I don’t feel having watched this program I will immediately go vegan.
The information shocked me. I’m eating already not much meat and only meat from local organic farmers.
Already vegetarian, and cut out animal products mostly because of this film
Yes, it shocked me. I am already very conscious about my meat consumption. I don’t buy meat in the grocery store. When I buy meat, only at a local butcher or from a local farmer. But the scene in the film, where the duck’s head is chopped off, and when Kip Andersen said, that if he can’t do this, no one else should do it for him – that also made me think about that. I already thinking about being vegetarian for a while now but being vegan would be much better. I think I’ll try that.
I know that not everybody treats the animals bad, I am only eating meat from regional farmers and organic
The next entry will be about the results of the last film and the conclusion.
Just like two weeks ago, an audience watched an environmental documentary and answered a couple of questions after they finished watching.
The audience is upwards from 20 years, from different countries in Europe, with different backgrounds and genders. The same audience will watch all four films which I introduced in the second entry.
Below are the results of the second weeks film.
The results shall help documentary filmmakers reach their audience better and get greater results in spreading their message.
How did the audience perceive an inconvenient sequel?
After the participators watched the film they filled out a questionnaire. I did go through the answered questionnaires and summarized the answers, the results are shown below.
All viewers stated that they were interested in the topic and had already informed themselves about this topic.
What they liked about the film:
relatable data
well rounded
good facts
gives a bit hope
What they did not like about the film:
too much self promotion
american documentary style/ too staged
not very trustworthy because the main protagonist is a politician
Did they think the topic was well presented?
30 % of the viewers thought that the topic was one-sided and mainly what Al Gore wants people to see.
Did they feel a connection to somebody?
50% did feel a connection to Al Gore, but not straight from the start. The other half did not feel a connection to anybody.
Has anything in the film moved them or stayed in their mind, if so what?
the Paris climate summit talk from Indias president
the flooding scene where a woman had to be saved
the catastrophes from the climate change
the melting glacier caps
the involvement of big companies in the climate catastrophe
that environmental problems hit the poor the hardest
What message did they take from the film?
that climate change is a largely man made problem
that nothing essential has been done about it yet
that every single human can help to save the environment
that a big part of climate change is due to what giant companies do and/ or not do
Everybody was aware of what climate change means for us, everybody thought that there is something we can do to help with the problem.
These were the results of last weeks film, this weeks film is going to be cowspiracy , about its results I am going to write next week. After I have gathered all the results of all four films, I am going to write the first conclusion.
