ADVERTISEMENT

Wrapping Up: traditional production house launches website

"As traditional filmmakers we’ve all grappled with convergence,” explains co-founder of Wrappingup.com Della Churchill – "this is our attempt at mixing business styles."

At first glance, a website designed to help the recently bereaved and tackle the mine-field of estate planning may not seem like an obvious choice for Screen Australia’s Innovation program funding.

However, Kelly Chapman, friend and business partner to Churchill, says the government agency was “very happy” to provide 40 per cent of the modest Wrappingup.com budget – under $500,000 in total.

The deal was struck on the premise of website innovation, and the ever-compelling argument jobs for industry practitioners.

Both women previously founded Brisbane-based production houses Churchill created Chilling Pictures in 2003 and Chapman’s KCDC began three years ago.

Additionally, the project hired a television writer, while actress Heather Mitchell greets visitors on their homepage – it’s “a great space to put screen skills,” Churchill says.

“Film’s always been collaborative,” she continues, it's just now "encompassing designers and developers as well.”

The site also gave Churchill a chance to relive her AFTRS experience and reclaim her director’s hat with a series of informative short films produced on the “smell of an oily rag.”

“People in grief find it really hard to deal with large amounts of text,” she explains.

The digital media project has perked Churchill’s interest in future innovations in film. “I can definitely see us finding a new way for distributing film,” she says.

Wrappingup.com, which has attracted 2000 online visitors in its first week, also has plans to expand into the US and UK. The website profits may also be used to fund traditional film projects through their production houses. 
 

  1. Don’t get me wrong this is a wonderful resource but it’s hardly innovative enough to warrant an investment of 200K. How is it going to create jobs for industry practitioners? This is a business website, not one that explores digital creativity. At least Beach Town, Map My Summer and Enchantment are relevant to the sector. How can Screen Australia justify investing in this?

  2. This only goes to highlight why people are disillusioned with Australian funding bodies and that to get funds it’s all about who you know.
    I know personally someone who approached SA about possible funding of a website that was 100% orientated to the film industry and it’s workers, only to be told that they ‘don’t fund websites’. Really… what is SA doing funding a site that has zero content to do with the industry? It’s a joke!
    I don’t blame Della, when you’re looking for funding you take it where you can get it, it’s just that in this case Screen Australia is not the place and should not be providing funding (and by the way, explaining it as jobs for industry practitioners is ridiculous, it’s got nothing to do with this industry except that the person behind it is trying to get out of the industry!)

  3. Great a $500,000 website…. Taxpayer Funding for what a “dead website”??

    Where is the “convergence” ?? New media? A video?? Hirer the “technical and design” elements. What is left? $$

    Wow this what Companies pay a lot less than $500,000 for – “Businesses” not “Jobs for the Girls”?

    $200,000 of what and Why Screen Australia?

  4. A budget of $500,000? Surely this is a typo and a zero has been added? I fail to see where the site is breaking new ground, putting video on the front page is hardly an innovation. Unfortunately this project re-enforces why many of us see Screen Australia as a money for mates funding body.

  5. The project has 7 short films in it and more will be produced annually. The innovation is in several areas:
    1. Creating a project for an audience of women over 50,
    2. Using screen stories to broach sensitive issues online,
    3. Adapting a book to an online project instead of to a documentary.

    Screen practitioners were employed to write and make the films.

    Rather than bag it and the funding body, do you not think it’s worth exploring more sustainable business models?

    It’s obvious that Taxpayer and Tony Hayes have not bothered to sign up for a free membership and explore the site – it’s dense with content and the culmination of more than two years research and development.

    Bitter and twisted commentary methinks.

  6. So, Kelly… creating a project for an audience of women over 55 and using moving pictures to get a message across is innovative??? Pull the other one.
    Nothing you have raised gets away from the fact that a film funding body has funded a commercial venture that has nothing to do with the film industry.

  7. and another thing… (you’ve got me going)
    1. Creating a project for women over 55 is not innovative – it’s called defining a market.
    2. Using screen stories…etc. – not innovative in the least, moving pictures have been used for over half a century to broach sensitive issues.
    3. Adapting a book to an online project – nothing even remotely innovative there; 30 seconds of ggogling will tell you that.
    4. Using screen practitioners to write and make the films… um… that is what screen practitioner do, isn’t it. Why don’t all the commercial production houses apply for a bit too?
    5. If your sustainable business model is to get out of the film industry and into online commerce, good luck to you, but please don’t expect me and every other tax payer to pay for your website.
    6. Just because you use moving images in your site and have done some hard work doesn’t give you any right to funding that is meant for the film industry.

  8. With all due respect Ruby, by definition, Screen Australia’s Innovation department seeks to encourage filmmakers to work with web developers and designers to reach broader audiences. The new content world calls for a broader definition of collaboration.

    Creating a WEB project for women over 50 is innovative.

    Using short films ONLINE to broach sensitive issues is innovative.

    Adapting a book to an online project is, IN AUSTRALIA, innovative.

    Commercial production houses are no doubt welcome to apply for funds for assistance in reaching broader audiences with screen stories, for all screens. Here is the public link http://screenaustralia.gov.au/funding/allmedia/Innovation.aspx

    I’m really having a hard time understanding your objections to the project. There’s an audience for it, it’s on screen, 60% of the budget was raised privately, it provides a community service, screen technicians will be employed annually to create new videos, and it’s the result of two filmmakers working hard to make their businesses sustainable.

    Neither of us has any intention of leaving the film industry. My company’s first feature will be released later this year after having its world premiere at Toronto in 2010. WrappingUp.com is another facet to our business.

  9. Kelly if the “if” review had provided some of the detail you just provided instead of saying your site is an unlikely choice for funding from SA you may have had a more positive response. It is also not apparent on your site there is the depth of content you describe, plus you may be interested to know the sample videos won’t play on a PC. As others have commented here your site is a strange choice for SA and if you are going to use taxpayer dollars to fund a commercial venture you need to develop a thicker skin.

  10. My comment to you Tony, thanking you for your tip on the video and acknowledging we’ll check it out (it works for our developer studio – all PC) has not been approved. So I’m writing this so you know I’m not ignoring your feedback. I don’t mind a robust discussion at all.

  11. Kelly… seriously… apart from you, Della and your mates at SA, does anyone else out there really believe you have done anything more than create a high quality website that uses moving pictures as one of the ways it conveys its message? I don’t think so. This is something that is done for commercial purposes every day. For the last time… ITS NOT INNOVATIVE!

  12. I’m hoping this debate will branch out into a wider, more positive discussion about the future of screen skills on the web. Post houses are reporting a trickle of business starting to flow from website owners wanting a less home-made look on their video content and we hope that our site encourages greater collaboration and aspiration between traditional screen workers and web developers. It may look effortless but it took quite a bit of innovation to get our site playing high-quality videos that will work on low-end bandwith. The CMS was also custom built so that we can create and control content without the developers input – yes, another innovation not explored in the article above. It’s a site with a lot of depth and social utility. I hope people will sign up for a free membership and explore it before voicing an opinion based on the landing page in future. I also wanted to assure my colleagues that I’m not leaving the industry I’ve been in for almost two decades and yet I also still experience the disappointment of having projects knocked backed and have not found a magic door for funding. What WrappingUp.com had was a very thorough business plan which helped to convince people to invest their money in 60% of a start-up that had an altruistic aim.

  13. I’m hoping this debate will branch out into a wider, more positive discussion about the future of screen skills on the web. Post houses are reporting a trickle of business starting to flow from website owners wanting a less home-made look on their video content and we hope that our site encourages greater collaboration and aspiration between traditional screen workers and web developers. It may look effortless but it took quite a bit of innovation to get our site playing high-quality videos that will work on low-end bandwith. The CMS was also custom built so that we can create and control content without the developers input – yes, another innovation not explored in the article above. It’s a site with a lot of depth and social utility. I hope people will sign up for a free membership and explore it before voicing an opinion based on the landing page in future. I also wanted to assure my colleagues that I’m not leaving the industry I’ve been in for almost two decades and yet I also still experience the disappointment of having projects knocked backed and have not found a magic door for funding. What WrappingUp.com had was a very thorough business plan which helped to convince people to invest their money in 60% of a start-up that had an altruistic aim.

  14. Bella Ruby, I’m sorry, but it absolutely is. From Screen Australia’s website, defining their Innovation arm:

    Funding is for

    The development and/or production of innovative, dynamic multi-platform and single-platform interactive media of any duration, format, or type, including, but not limited to, content-rich websites, interactive television (iTV), applications and interactive content for handheld devices including smartphones, and online, PC, and console games.

    Do you suggest Screen Australia should only fund projects that aren’t commercial???

  15. Tony, sorry but I can’t think of many taxpayer funded feature films or TV projects that *aren’t* a ‘commercial venture’ (if they don’t make a profit it isn’t from lack of trying; they are not charitable or ‘non-profit’ ventures)- the only claim for complaint here seems to be that this is a web based project rather than a traditional format. If this were a standard documentary helping people deal with bereavement would we be having this conversation? No.

    So the issue here is that some people don’t value web based projects in the same way as they value film and tv projects – ignoring the fact that Screen Australia (and most of the state bodies ) renamed and rebranded themselves a few years ago in order to reflect that they are no longer simply supporting film and television, but also other emerging forms of storytelling.

    Absolutely open for comment – as with every project that gets funding there will be those who think they’ve chosen wrong for any number of reasons. And if the original article left information out that would go to explain away some of those criticisms, fair enough that the creators respond with further information.

    If only the original article had taken the trouble to better explain the project (everyone knows what a “film” or “tv show” is, but web, digital, and transmedia projects come in so many shapes and forms they sometimes need a bit more explaining). This is the second IF article I’ve read recently that has been more than a bit misleading, in a way that questions journalistic standards – people might start thinking twice about who’s interviewing them.

  16. Bella Ruby, I’ve been checking our membership register and can’t see any new female members since the article was posted so its hard to say what has given you such a vitriolic reaction. How can you make pronouncements on innovation without seeing all of the site and without revealing what expertise you have on the subject? Perhaps its easier to lash out using a pseudonym but its not a brave choice.

  17. I am now putting together my application for $200K of funding, to develop my upcoming http://www.incontinence.com project. An innovative demographic, short films, and I’m sure I can find a book on the subject to cut and paste from. It has all the right ingredients.

  18. Bella Ruby, have you actually taken the time to look through the website? Because your rants sound like a child throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get what they want in the market place.
    The videos content is engaging, dealing with the topics in a way that is light hearted and tasteful. The short stories have obviously been written well and as a side, INFORM users/viewers about a sensitive topic that could in fact make life (and death) easier. The medium has been used in a very rich way. This is not a mere website.
    I can imagine its hard for traditional screen practitioners to swallow that a screen project could be pulled of so well in.. no.. don’t say it.. digital… And it is also hard to swallow that perhaps, just perhaps, a project of this scale would rack up $$$..
    Please don’t downgrade the talents and skill of practitioners who are exploring other mediums to tell story.. It really is insulting.
    Its not just “a high quality website that uses moving pictures as one of the ways it conveys its message”.. As a whole the project needs both to serve its full function. I haven’t seen anything else like it in this country.

    I think its great that Kelly and Della have been able develop something that is potentially sustainable in terms of a business model, so they won’t be relying on funding bodies to sustain themselves in the future and to enable to them employ people from the industry.
    Engaging informative (and funny) stories with a solid business model.. that’s innovative.. almost unheard of.

    Nice one Kelly and Della. When’s the mobile app coming?

  19. This has surely got to be one of the all-time the biggest insults to practicing filmmakers and screen practitioners in this country. How can Screen Australia fund an organization that is not part of Screen Culture in any way? Just because you have a website, and you make a video piece that supports your business, doesn’t mean that you contribute to Australian screen culture. This is an abuse of the system at it’s highest and most disgusting level. Kelly Chapman, you should be embarrassed for taking those resources from legitimate Screen Professionals, while the government should set-up an independent inquiry into the way Screen Australia conducts its business.

  20. A website about Estate Planning and Advice for bereaved loved ones is NOT an Innovative Screen Practice. It is, as everyone else has commented on here, a commercial business venture supported by video content online, and has nothing to do with “providing support to Australian film, television, documentary and digital media makers.” (Screen Australia Website)

  21. I work in retails sales in a computer store. Trust me. A website for over 50 yo women is innovative. Try working in my store and sell them computer equipment. These innovative websites will make my job easier for one thing. If it was targeting children I would agree but its not and so I dont.

  22. Hi Kelly, thanks for the additional info. It sounds like SA need to reassess their objectives for the innovation program. Its been my understanding that SA will not finance companion products for commercial enterprises. This website is not an exploration of storytelling or the moving image, nor does it enhance the expertise of digital media practitioners of further the craft. It’s a business enterprise financed under the assumption that the profits would someday, indirectly support the sector. Creating a website and companion video pieces is not innovative, it’s marketing.

    I would strongly advise that you research the recent works of practitioners like Lance Weiler, (particularly Pandemic 1.0 @ Sundance ’11), Gary Hayes (Augmented Reality) and Guillermo del Toro (Mirada). These are the types of projects the innovation program should be financing. As a multiplatform producer I know of many Australian digital practitioners working in this field, eager to secure financing for cross platform/transmedia projects. Hopefully next year the funds will be available.

  23. A website dealing with the bereavement process sounds pretty innovative to me – and what about seeing how it does over the next couple of months before bagging it? Creating On-line content is where most screen content creators (actors, directors, writers, producers) are going to be making a living in ten years time – even if no-one seems to know exactly how yet – and it’s important screen australia support those exploring new models. Is that the purpose of the innovation fund? Maybe it’ll work maybe it won’t – a risk faced by every film ever made, incidentally – but at least give it a chance.

  24. I think other people have demonstrated point-it is not innovative, it is not cost-effective, it will not be winning any website awards.-The video that I started to watch had the production values of the dead hand with the graphics of the 1980s high school student. For a website with that video to pay commercially more than $50-$70,000 would be a rip-off! That is the commercial world and it would be a lot more “innovative”, functional and highder design elements.

    “Filmmakers”-media makers are involved commercially with the production of websites and incorporating “innovating” videos and other web 2.0 elements into websites that have a market an audience. This is done at a commercially applicable rate, in a commercially viable timeframe. Two years?? Half $1 million?? And 200,000 taxpayer dollars for a $50-$70,000 website? Film industry in Australia? Will never be commercially viable if they are charging 10 to 7 times the commercial rate for international Competitive websites.

  25. How is it that so many people, including it seems the article writer, feel free to comment on a website that they’ve only seen the landing page for? Do people walk out of a film after the first five minutes and still feel qualified to review it? Films are a commercial venture – aren’t they? Sounds like a wider and more informed discussion is needed.

  26. Hi Kelly… thanks for pointing me to the SA Innovation Fund website. It was very informative and told me that… ‘It also does not support projects or content in the areas of corporate communications, training or e-commerce.’ Now, correct me if I’m wrong… but you are engaging in e-commerce are you not? Look, I’m not knocking your website, or denying that it, in itself may be a little innovative. What I don’t agree with is that the way you have used your short films, or the short films themselves are in any way innovative. Even the SA site says, ‘Content will not be considered innovative simply by virtue of using a certain delivery mechanism’, which seems to knock out one of your arguments, doesn’t it. I simply believe that if two film makers with no prior relationship with SA tried to get $200,000 for the very same project they (quite rightly) wouldn’t stand a chance.

  27. There are many good points raised here on both sides of the argument. Cutting through the passion, these points really open the door to a much bigger discussion – we all know traditional film revenue models are no longer working and the R&D gone into this project is a sincere attempt to explore some others – for all filmmakers.

    Here is a more thorough exploration of the site http://mediawave.tv/site/item.cfm?item=C70E2831FBCD27590D943652B302F182

  28. Taxpayer obviously doesn’t make film. 7 short films in the site bore the majority of the production costs.

  29. Bella Ruby, I agree with you. Well done for having the guts to vent your opinions. The system is flawed, but “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Hopefully your response will make SA a little bit more tranparent and encourage a broader spread of money since the transmedia sector is so undefined and mysterious to us all (funding bodies in particular). I spent a considerable time on the innovative application only to find out that the external assessors completely misjudged what my application was about! Lesson to be learnt, get the right people, who are in the right places who know the game and know how to convey the box-tickers…then we to may get our own wrappingup.com 😉

  30. Dear “Anon”, who posted on 18 March. Your post is not only cowardly and mean, it is inaccurate and misleading. Kelly’s company, KCDC, is involved in a number of screen projects at various stages of development, including an on-line series, feature films, TV series and transmedia projects. By any sensible person’s definition, this constitutes a contribution to screen culture. Full disclosure – I have worked with Kelly on some of these projects, including a feature film which premiered at Toronto in 2010, and she is the definition of a legitimate screen professional. Your post was unfair and prejudicial, not only to Kelly, but also to Screen Australia, Kelly’s colleagues and others who work creating on-line content in this industry.

  31. Taxpayers do make films that fulfill the OBJECTIVES of SA and other Funding Organisations for Film Makers. Not Graduates playing tax dollars, with locked off Talking Heads and without production values…. Allowing a very generous $100,000 for the e-commerce site, 7 IN-NOTVATIVE at $57,142 dollars per film! Bravo!! And people wonder why there is not a Film INDUSTRY Australia?

  32. I agree Kelly – Australia is THE most expensive place in the world to make films and judging by the content your serving I would argue the site should have cost millions! This is a great debate and I look forward to more rants, thats what this little screen is good at – dialogue – But everyone should know that the funding bodies guidelines are…wait for it ….guide lines…and they change when the world changes. PS The world has changed and we all watch a boat load of stuff on the internet and yes it’s a screen as well. PPS – Im jealous as well that Kelly managed to get that money!..although I would not have looked forward to producing the submission docs on spec. Good luck, I hope you make squillions and repay SA 100 fold.

  33. In response to your comment Kelly, that the “majority” of the production costs (From a budget of around $500K) went on the 7 short films.

    In the article your quoted as saying a series of informative short films produced on the “smell of an oily rag.”??

    These two just don’t seem to marry up? Could you please confirm if the short films were produced using professional cast/crew all paid at industry/union rates, which would support the industry… for now. Or were they produced using a lot of favours, freebies, next to nothing deals, etc? (which sounds more like on the smell of an oily rag) as this obviously goes no where near to supporting an industry.

    I could name dozens of service type websites which use video to support the message, just like most e-commerce sites. The film clips again are to play a SUPPORT role to a standard commercial website, and are not the main purpose of the funding, which to myself and many others, seems just absolutely wrong, and I can’t imagine them funding another similar project again. In fact, from talking to members of the judging committee I can pretty much confirm this.

    Shame on everyone involved for draining a flawed funding system process before it could be fixed.

  34. Does anyone else ever wonder why the funding bodies guidelines are only ever ‘guidelines’ for those who are on the gravy train, but strict policy for those who aren’t? And if Kelly had to repay the money, that might be fine, but I don’t think she does (correct me if I’m wrong).

  35. Michelle c… spoken like a true (artsy) filmmaker. You know what, none of what you say matters… it’s of no consequence if the films are well made, engaging or about a sensitive topic, you can’t get away from the fact that it is simply a commercial site using short films to sell its wares – this is done everyday by commercial production companies who would never even consider asking for a handout to fund their projects (why would they). And please, if I hear one more person give me this jargon about telling stories, I’ll vomit – it’s about selling memberships… that, Michelle, is why there are massive orange buttons all over the website that say ‘UPGRADE NOW’. I’ll tell you a story, it’s about two film makers who knew the system so well, and had ridden the gravy train so often that they managed to convince a government body to fund their commercial venture – now there’s a story!

  36. Does anyone else wonder at the irony of filmmakers that rely on a funding body to produce a ‘a sustainable business model’ that – wait for it – will help them stop relying on funding bodies! I do.

  37. Wondering, have you heard of the Enterprise program? It’s all about building sustainable business models – or did you blindly attack those filmmakers in another forum? Ruby, can i suggest you do your research as you’d find that neither creator of what is essentially a freemium/premium website model have even smelt your so called “gravy train”. I’d be interested in who else you think is on this imaginary train but i think we can do without you slandering any other independent filmmakers The site, for those who still have not got past the landing page offers a stack of free information – including the video content – to the recently bereaved and those who want to plan ahead. A well researched and free public service … and Anita Potty thinks its shameful? No wonder you are all hiding your true identities. The article does not do the site justice and neither do the sour grapes displayed in some of these comments.

  38. If only I had completed the “Successfull Government Grant Applications – 101” course.
    There’s nothing innovative here, right down to videos assisting the bereaved (I did one for a funeral director 15 years ago). Short films, corporate films, infotainment have been around on the web from dial-up days. Every production I have made in the past 5 years has had a web presence. Many over the past 3 years have been exclusively for internet distribution.
    “Creating a project for an audience of women over 50” is hardly innovative either. My wife is 55 and has no problem spending hours in front of a computer monitor watching and listening to VoD webcasts and special interest video portals.
    Kelly, if you know how to trigger funding from SA, as a chinese businessman once told me, “just smile and take the money”. Good luck while the funding lasts. I’d try it too if I were a graduate of a goverment film school.

  39. I looked at the website in question.

    Less than impressed, I scrolled down to see any reference to videos.

    There, near the bottom, “See some sample videos”.

    Want to see innovative web videos, take a look at our site:
    http://www.unseentv.tv

    ALL video, all of it. No need to search or scroll for “samples”.

  40. Hilarious!

    I decided to look at the videos, thinking I might gain insight into their production values.

    But they don’t play, they just white out.

    Neither plays. Both white out.

    Money well spent, I’d say.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *