Tag: interview

This article is contributed by our content partner, Nexchange NOW.

Dr. Patrice Poujol is an EnTech research expert and a film practitioner. He has 8-year experience in the financial sector and movie finance and 12-year experience as a creative consultant and producer in the movie industry. In 2018, he obtained the first PhD worldwide on the integration of blockchain technology in Creative Media (CityU Hong Kong) through an academic exchange with UCLA and a participation in the MEFTI programme organised by MIT.

Dr. Poujol is a member of the Hong Kong Internet Governance Forum (HKIGF) and EnTech public policy postdoctoral research fellow at the centre for Applied Computing and Interactive Media (ACIM – CityU). His book “Online Film Production in China Using Blockchain and Smart Contracts” is published by Springer in 2019.

Dr. Poujol is the founder and CEO of Box Productions and of Lumière (芦明) – a blockchain and smart contract solution to handle transactions and flows of capital faster, cheaper and more transparently into movie productions. The Lumière Project (芦明) is part of the Motion Protocol ecosystem, a global alliance of blockchain and media companies, which has developed working solutions for film professionals throughout the entire production chain from finance to distribution.

Olga Yaroshevsky: The topic that you cover sounds like something really unique. The intersection of movie making and distribution, blockchain and finance. I really want to know how you’ve managed to put these three together and even conduct a 4-year Phd research on that! Can you please first tell us a little more about yourself, about your background. Is it more film making, or more finance?

Patrice Poujol: It was a long road, yeah. It’s a point of convergence, of a lot of things. But before I even go down there – there are not a lot of people in this space, yet. I think it’s going to get more crowded and serious. During the ICO everybody came up with a movie idea, I’m not going to give any names, but… people raised a lot of money and burnt it, or got burnt by a market. Sometimes they didn’t have any knowledge in tech or film, sometimes that tried to solve a problem that didn’t even exist, or that they were very unfamiliar with. 

I started when I was a little boy – and that will give you an idea of my age – I was programming video games in BASIC, on an Amstrad 6128. It was a big addiction at the time. I went on a tangent, and fast forwarding for a few years I went on through a banking experience. I did finance projects, credit lines, let’s say – products with very little risk. Then I decided to get my hands dirty, I got a Masters in Film Production in Dublin, in Ireland. At the O’Kane Centre for Film Studies. We had quite significant patrons – for example, Gregory Peck, Martin Scorcese, Neil Jordan, Jim Sheridan, I can’t even name all the patrons we had, it was an amazing way to learn. 

I ended up consulting in film production for several years. At this point, I was geared towards blockchain. I was offered by CityU Hong Kong a possibility to do a PhD research. Everybody at this time, at the end of 2014, was saying that Bitcoin was dead, it was right after the Mt Gox. And I started an extensive research for several years, seeing how could solve problems we had in film with blockchain technology, will it be able to solve any of our problems. I went the other way around, started with the blockchain – okay, what kind of problems can we solve? If we can solve, let’s have a look, is it going to work, and if it’s not working – just leave it. And that’s why I called it a point of convergence – essentially, being a geek in late 80s to becoming a banker in the early 2000s and eventually dedicating myself to what is passion – film. And whether I make films, directing pieces, or whether I help people making films – to me it’s just the same, it’s about getting an idea which is very abstract on the screen, so people can share it and see it. And that is the beauty of cinema – sharing ideas, films, views, and this is something I would like to keep until the end.

OY: It’s amazing how the universe listens to you, right?

PP: Yes! Alchemy. The beauty and the architecture of decentralised systems, whether you use blockchain or peer-to-peer, is that it really shows that interconnection. And I think it can bring very interesting and diverse ideas to life.

OY: Now to the hottest news – I’m talking about Papicha film, about which you made an exciting announcement last week. So, am I getting this right: you’ve securitized rights for this film, correct?

PP: Yes, we did equity. We wanted to get a project that we would be able to establish that what we and our partners been building actually works, and can work for a full film. When you go to Cannes film festival, I’m talking this year, you got thousands of projects floating around. It is very important in the first steps to choose a right project. Eventually, the idea is to have a platform democratising projects, and if people would not be able to find those projects – we will find them. That’s the endgame. But before we go there, which to me is going to take years, it can’t be done in one day, we’re going to pinpoint projects that are aligned with tech, the needs of what we can do at the moment, also with our ideas, with our values, with the level of budget we can sustain at the moment. It will be growing eventually, but we can’t just take as a first film massive independent commercial movie of 50 or 70 million, that’s unrealistic. It’s like a gamble. We don’t gamble with our partners’ money. «Papicha» came as the obvious choice. We did the grinding work, we went down, we met people, and «Papicha» eventually was an obvious choice, because there was very little risk attached to it. It was a female director with her own opinion, and what she describes in that film, the expression of her film, the way she did it is very much in line with what we wanted to defend. Which is diversity. Which is humanity.

We said okay, let’s do this first step and see if it works, and it did. Part of this film is securitised, as we haven’t securitised the whole thing, for two reasons: one, we wanted to see whether this would work, because we don’t want to push people into securitising if they don’t feel comfortable with it. This is quite new. Sometimes people are not necessarily allowed legally invest that way in a film, on a platform, for example. In the US it’s a very stringent regulation, but the moment is changing, so tomorrow could be different. We didn’t want anybody to be disappointed, so we essentially set this up with people who could do it. We didn’t want to force anybody because we think it’s actually contrary to any adoption principles. 

With «Papicha» we had no idea at the time it was going to go for the Oscar race. It hasn’t been shortlisted yet, so we don’t know what’s going to happen. Once you get an Oscar nomination whether you win it or not is irrelevant, it’s a lottery ticket at this point, and it depends on so many things. 

We took this film we really believed in, we set up a technology on it. The people who invested in the film, if they sell their participation the night of Oscars, when the film has essentially been nominated, they could sell their part with a profit.

On average an independent film, which is what «Papicha» is, makes 40% of their money back. You lose as an investor 60%, it’s a very long process, it takes about two years to get your money back. We’re trying to give a win to everyone involved. Producers can lock the budget for their film, and they get the money that they need. Directors can make a film that they need to make. For investors we’re lowering the risk. We even will reduce the commercial risk, which is the hardest so far.

I don’t think blockbusters and independent films are competing against each other. Yes, they do in terms of money, time, attention, but they help each other out. Without blockbusters there wouldn’t be independent films, or cinemas. Without independent films we would just be rehashing the same recipe, and people would get bored. They’re totally intertwined. 

We wanted to make sure that when investors are investing in a film the entry risk is lower, as low as possible.

OY: Are there any other use cases, any other films that were invested in like this?PP: Like this, to the best of my knowledge, no, not yet.

Image via Nexchange NOWOriginal Article: http://www.nexchangenow.com/news/blockchain/71107/nexchange-interview-series-dr-patrice-poujol-part-1/

This article is contributed by our content partner, Nexchange NOW.

“Blockchain technology might not be the ideal system, but might be a conduit for humanity from a fish tank to the ocean.”

Dr. Patrice Poujol: The day we came up with our press release, Wesley Snipes said he was launching his 25 million dollar tokenized movie fund. It’s stunning!

Olga Yaroshevsky: Am I getting this right: blockchain platforms as a 360-degree service for film making, so you can manage rights, finance, production solutions, invest through global fundraising. Do you think the industry, which is relatively strong and big enough these days, especially in the US, to stay as it is, is ready for such… technical disruption? It takes a lot of knowledge, a lot of understanding, and sometimes courage.

PP: Well, that’s why you gotta make it as simple as possible. Without going back to the dinosaurs, the history of cinema, which is more than 100 years old, and cinema IS technology. Cinema is a theatre that’s been recorded, originally, right? So it’s more than 100 year history of a constant technology adaptation. From drum recording to sound recording, from color to 3D, from VHS to DVD to Internet etc. In terms of distribution it has constantly evolved technologically. The thing that it had been able to do before the Internet was to constantly monetize these technological improvements, and that’s why cinema industry made a killing with VHS in the 80s, made even a bigger killing with DVD. But then, all of a sudden, there was the Internet, and there was already a massive disruption. Now you’ve got Netflix, and Amazon, and a few more online outlets. But the truth is – the film industry is not going well at all. The only people who are going well are the people who are already online. And even that’s shaky, because they really depend on their content. The minute their content goes lower – nobody will want to pay a subscription. They will be gone. Amazon and Alibaba are different, because they have a cash cow backing them up, with e-commerce. That’s why they are not making much noise, they are not as proactive as Netflix, because they don’t need to be. But eventually they will be the ones that are going to BE there.

Amazon, even if something bad happens, already has a lot more power than the studios. WIth big corporations like Alibaba, Tencent making a step further. Facebook is trying as well. So in terms of disruption – forget about blockchain! This is already a massively disrupted system. Studios are trying to keep up, Disney is probably the strongest one – they have franchise, merchandising, they have revenues, leisure parks. Warner has some cross sale and cross promotion. But these are not their days, to be honest. 

With independent movies it’s even worse. If you’re trying to raise money with an independent movie and you haven’t done anything before – forget it. Either you have a rich family or friends who can help you out, or you’ll have a really hard time being able to put some money together. On top of it, and it’s another point of convergence, governments are starting to find it hard to finance culture and movies. I’m not gonna name the countries, but there’s been a drastic reduction in budget for movies and entertainment in general. 

Even if you take TV, it’s not going well, not at all. Netflix lowered down the amount of money they used to give to producers, now they squeeze margins, and I understand why. They’ve got a business to run, and they’ve got shareholders to please. 

We’re not trying to do 360 at Lumiere, but to establish partnerships with the existing companies. We’re not in charge of rights, we don’t manage rights. To tell the truth, blockchain is not scalable enough. But there are interesting models. For example, Motion – they convert viewership into fractions, so people would spend money in accordance with the right orders. For example, I would spend 4 or 5 cents to watch a film in 4K. That’s disruption!

We don’t think it’s a single platform doing 360, it’s gonna be more decentralized than that. We’ll see where “Papicha” goes, but we already have people and projects approaching us, and we can respond to their needs. We’re in B2B business. The endgame is to be able to open finance to retail customers. Eventually we want to open 20% gap, but that’s not gonna come in another few years. We’re now setting up liquidity and making sure we lower the risk. You know, B2B wasn’t the endgame for the internet adoption.

OY: Your PhD research was about Chinese market, right?

PP: Yes, but I was looking at China since 2001, since it was opening massively to the world. China, and in that extent, Russia, didn’t have much to say in the way the Internet was developed. None of the domains are in Cyrillic, none are in Chinese. It was all pretty much rolled out from the West. Which is why China built massive walls around themselves, a Great China Firewall. Which is the same as they built in the old days from the invaders from the North. They don’t want any disruption from the outside. The founder and the father was actually blocked out of his own system a few years ago, so that shows how effective the thing is.

OY: And when it comes to the film industry?

PP: Very effective too. But it’s broken down. Alibaba, Tencent, they play dual aspect. At the end of the day they are accountable by the government and the rules it imposes. There are hits and misses, but usually it’s very effective. That’s why the way that blockchain is being researched and implemented is very different from the Internet. The Internet was very unilaterally created, and then we had to adapt to it with mostly English language basis. And it’s great, it connected us to each other, and we all speak English now – even the French manage to speak English, it’s quite an achievement!:) Blockchain is much more interesting as a development model. Now everybody is involved. Russia and China are driving the process. Israel is involved, Europe, Latin America, Africa is a major driver for adoption. Any of the Asian countries are really pushing, Korea is obviously very strong, having a massive network effect. Japan… I could list literally every country on Earth, everyone is involved in this change, this transformation. What’s interesting is that smaller countries that usually wouldn’t have a say in the Internet developments now are punching way above their weight. Like Singapore, Estonia, particularly when you look at securitization, Liechtenstein, Malta, even Hong Kong at some extent. A lot of countries are emerging through this technology. People are trying to build a model together that is interoperable.

At Lumiere we’re not looking to become the next monopoly, we believe in cooperation – with what already exists, with what’s going to exist. We are just a cell in a million of other cells, which eventually may lead to decentralization. 

Blockchain is going to be a very interoperable system when we start using public chains on a daily basis, for IOT, for the way that information is gonna be managed. It will be peer-to-peer. 

I remember being at a meeting in September 2017, where John McAfee was saying that there will be a lot of resistance. People were not going to understand at the time. Now, with a bit of perspective, I think he’s right. It’s in the very essence of the model. The resistance will be between a world that’s essentially centralised, and our mindset that is centralised. Blockchain transcends politics. It brings a philosophical angle.

OY: I just thought of Tommy Shelby saying that phrase in the latest season of Peaky Blinders: it’s not revolution, it’s evolution.

PP: Exactly, you got it. It’s also about how we manage this, and I think we should manage it smoothly. Nobody wants to go head-to-head, governments VS corporations, VS society. What’s happening in many countries, like in France, the Yellow Vests movement, these are just symptoms. Everybody’s trying to find a solution. Everybody is in an aquarium, trying to find a way to the ocean. And maybe blockchain technology, at least in terms of reflection, might not be the ideal system, might be a conduit from the fish tank to the ocean.

Image via Nexchange NOWOriginal Article: http://www.nexchangenow.com/news/fintech/71134/nexchange-interview-series-dr-patrice-poujol-part-2/