“The Media” — also known somewhat derisively as “The Mainstream Media” or “The MSM” — has an image among some as the obstacle to progress and a blocking agent to new thinking. If you are on the technology side of the entertainment business (independent film included), it’s easy to find yourself agreeing with those points of view as you struggle to find a niche opening through which you can drive your product. The MSM is at it again! The cry goes up as techno dudes rally to break down the barriers between products and fans … and apparently, we’re winning!

There is a reason why The Mainstream Media is “mainstream” as far as the film business is concerned. It sits right in the middle of the traditional flow of commerce between filmmakers and fans, and it exercises enormous influence over what will get seen and what won’t. Not so much because of a reviewer’s opinion about whether the project is somehow “good” or not. The influence that has been wielded by the MSM is much more pervasive than that.

Here’s how it works: Mary has a great film that has played festivals and won awards. She decides to release the film herself because none of the usual suspects picked up the title for distribution. She’s sure she will sell lots of DVDs because her festival play was so well received.

Joe does her website for her and it looks great and works great. She also hires Tom, a “Distribution Consultant” who tells here that he can get her in to the retail stores if she’s got the shrinkwrapped, manufactured copies. Mary then pays a replicator to stamp out a couple of thousand DVDs and stands back ready to take orders.

But it doesn’t work. With 99 unopened boxes, each with 100 newly shrinkwrapped DVDs packed inside, all stacked somewhere annoying, Mary hears about IndiePix. And we have heard her story too many times. Small details are sometimes different but the story is basically the same.

Retailers didn’t order. The festival visibility was not enough. Retailers didn’t pay any attention to the festival circuit rave reviews, and when the title’s availability was announced, they couldn’t find any thing about it. So the retailers didn’t order it.

Retailers didn’t find reviews. The reason retailers did not order was because they “Googled” the title. The occasional comment from the festival circuit showed up, but the retailers don’t recognize non-mainstream sources today. Seeing no comments from reviewers whose names they know, retailers passed over the title.

Reviewers didn’t review. The MSM policy is to review films that play in theaters. Almost no one will give a major review to a film that does not play in a theater. The policy of The New York Times is even more specific and restrictive. Theatrical releasing organizations believe that advertising in newspapers is a great way to get people into the theater, and reviews of movies in theaters is a service to the theatrical business that supports the newspaper through advertising. The one recent, important, major exception to this otherwise iron-clad rule was the flurry of reviews for Joe Swanberg’s film “Alexander The Last”. In that case, reviewers including Manola Darghis from The New York Times reviewed the film based on its one time, one day screening at the Paramount Theater in Austin, Texas at the SXSW festival — after which the film was consigned to the relative oblivion of “video-on-demand.” (See our two previous notes on this: Just when you thought on the explosion of interest in VOD, and The Real Story From SXSW on the launch of the Swanberg title.)

Retailers concluded that no one wanted it. So reviewers didn’t review because it didn’t play theaters. And because there were no views, the mainstream retailer concluded that the consumer public, their mainstream buyer, didn’t know about the film. If they didn’t know about it, they don’t want it. And therefore, trying to guess what the consumer wants, the retailer decided it’s not worth an order.

Bingo! This title — like so many that we have seen — was effectively shut off from its actual and more broadly, it’s potential audience — and in my view, mostly because of the role the MSM plays in solidifying the role of theaters!

Why is this a technology question (my editor asks!)? This cycle is breaking down. I admit that it’s not all technology. But the technology and economics are closely allied and together they are changing deeply entrenched business behavior. The cost of a traditional exhibition is too great for independent films. The connections that might exist for a larger scale, Hollywood production definitely do not apply for indies (even the big indies, which are still only 10 percent of their Hollywood cousins). Newspapers are closing and editors are firing their film reviewers. Laggard retailers, which are very slow to change, don’t present their shoppers independent film choices. More film fans (indie film fans included) seek their titles on the web, and look to bloggers for commentary and discussion.

This is an irresistable wave that will not roll back. It will take the nimblest technologies to avoid being caught as old patterns are swept away, like broken tree trunks and tumbling cars in the storm’s surge.