Hal is selling CDs and DVDs to get his film made? I don’t understand how that’s an affective strategy these days anymore. Hope I’m wrong or maybe someone could swoop in with a bucket of cash? He is Hal Hartley after all and this isn’t his first rodeo. I’m curious about the crowd funding strategies that are getting movies made by directors who don’t have name recognition but just a great project. The most I’ve been able to successfully raise for about 5 projects in the past has been under $10k. It was successful but it was a lot of work. Not sure I’ll do it again. Someone once told rising 10k could be just as much work as rising 6 figures. I believe them.
I too would love to hear more about crowd funding strategies for directors without name recognition. Hopefully someone will share their knowledge! It's true, in my limited experience, it was too exhausting to go do it a second time!
I've done two successful Kickstarter projects: one for $50K and one for $90K. I have no name recognition. My wife said she'd divorce me if I ever did another Kickstarter campaign, as it was so hard and created so much anxiety in our family (she's since lifted her threat). Still it's so damn hard and has nothing to do with actual filmmaking. Managing rewards is ridiculously complicated (we had nearly 2000 backers on our last film): addresses change, T-shirt sizes were wrong, postage rates change, people request different rewards. Oy!
Despite this, if you move forward and do a Kickstarter campaign, one thing I learned is the importance of having something fresh and exciting to get through the mid-campaign slump when you're still far away from your goal and most folks are burnt out from hearing you plead for backers -- for both of our campaigns this was critical (we did a spoof commercial for one and it worked super well).
Also having a backer who matches pledges is super helpful. We had a guy who was going to donate a couple of thousand dollars and we asked if we could make it contingent on matching pledges and he agreed. So more people donated because they felt they were getting two for one.
Another thing: I strived to raise 10% of my goal on the first day -- that catches the attention of Kickstarter and increases your chances of being featured as "Project of the Day." We did a lot of work -- like two months' worth -- prior to launching.
The main reason I don't ever want to do another Kickstarter campaign is because of backer expectations -- some backers on Kickstarter (IMHO) feel like stockholders as opposed to donors -- and this causes problems for a creative project if you don't want community input. We had a handful of small-ish backers who acted like trolls. They hassled us non-stop and seemed to complain about everything. Ugh! It was hell. These were for donations of $10 or less. This went on for years.
The other reason I don't want to do another Kickstarter is due to the heightened censoring of crowd-funding on social media and in traditional media: it's so much harder to get attention than it used to be. I'm convinced that algorithms weed out posts for Kickstarter and throttle back anything that says, "support" "donate" "backer" "help" etc. The same with traditional media: recently the two largest newspapers in our state said they no longer covered crowd-funding projects because they get so many requests to do so.
Now try to get attention for your Kickstarter project without social media or newspaper coverage with no name recognition.
Bottom line, if you have the right product (which a film might not be) Kickstarter is incredible and revolutionary and an extraordinary tool. However, it also can be a nightmarish journey that has nothing to do with the creative work of filmmaking, leaving you cursing anything that is a happy bright green like Kickstarter's logo.
Using crowdfunding to assist in getting a film out there can work (I've done it myself,) and over the years I've figured out what alchemy works best to determine which approaches will likely succeed. I've helped fund around 100 projects through various platforms of crowdfunding, the majority of them film related, and have about a 95% success rate picking projects early in their offering that end up being successful. (I'm hoping that success rate won't take a dip with Hal Hartley's latest re-attempt. I funded it the first time round and re-committed to this one. I'm completely baffled by the numbers he's getting this time around, though.)
The key for all of the successful campaigns I've backed is the personalization and full attention given by the filmmakers to the separate goal of the funding campaign itself. Personalized in, you get to know the filmmakers who are behind the project and what drives them. More importantly than the film they're trying to make, I end up backing filmmakers I can believe are driven by the right motivations towards their goals. If I can ferret out their personality and feel like they'd be successful in life, I have no problem in giving money to get them over this current hurdle. Most of the time, I've been proved right, often backing a second or third funding project or watching the filmmaker go on to bigger and better things, no, longer needing the crowd's assistance to get the next on in the can.
As for the question of notoriety- or lack thereof- in raising sufficient sums, I've seen the following in the projects I've backed on Kickstarter (I think you can look at my profile on there and see the list of previously backed projects.)
Unknown (or known for something else) short films can get $50,000 to get their films done. Several I've backed have reached those levels and they were unknown to me before I saw their campaign. Some short films have hit incredible highs (e.g. Kung Fury short film - $630K)
Feature documentaries done by unknowns (or those not known for docs): Several have reached the $80K+ range of funding, and gone on to produce wonderful, award winning fare. (e.g. Be Natural, the story of Alice Guy Blache raised $219K and contributed to a resurgence in the early cinema maven's work recognition.)
Feature narratives from those branching out their notoriety in other ways: I've backed people's first features who've come from other areas to much success. Some like Zach Braff's first film Wish I Was Here ($3M raised) set him up as a proven director with a great eye and he's gone well beyond the Kickstarter funded realm for his latest film works. And the Veronica Mars movie was funded by fans (to the tune of $5M) as a proof of concept that there was still interest in the old TV show when there wasn't as much financial interest in it without that display.
Of course, anyone can pick apart crowdfunding and say, "But when you consider this [insert some single point that, for them completely nullifies the crowdfunding benefits]", or "They could have done it through traditional means," it misses the point that, those of us that traditionally are part of the "crowd" of crowdfunding know all those aspects. What we're traditionally funding is a belief in the people themselves that want to do something and need a bit of help. That's why the personalization of the campaign carries such weight. If you show yourself and why you are passionate about your project, people will click whether you're famous or not. And if the campaign is structured properly (a whole other long post would be need to go into how to do that,) to make the funder feel appreciated in helping out, then anyone can have a good chance of being successfully funded, whether it'd be for the full film production, or any specific part needed to get to the finish line (finishing funds, festival campaign funding, etc.)
Hal hits a lot of the marks in campaigns I have no problem funding and so I have. I'm anxious to see whether my previous experiences are still valid. Time and people's proclivities do change. And if the goal posts are moved, then I'll have to do more research and re-evaluate the strategies I recommend for future crowdfunding, including my own.
Way to go, Hal! The team surpassed the kickstarter goal. It proves there is a need looking for fulfillment. And people got to vote with their dollars for this film to be built.
Love this response from Hal, “It involves imagining myself to be not me but someone kind of like me who is approaching the film for the first time. Day after day, I do this. Of course, the most common struggle is to allow myself to admit something I’m quite attached to has, through good work, become superfluous in the course of the film coming together.”
I can imagine this is way easier said than done and also a very necessary practice. I haven’t gotten this far in the process on my first feature yet but it definitely makes me ponder how a filmmakers relationship with their film evolves throughout the process. The key is to ride the wave of evolution otherwise risk getting lost in the rapids of what it was supposed to be.
Re crowdfunding, I’ve done a few for short films (raising up to 16K) but still do not see how this ever becomes a sustainable model for a career. (Unless one has lots of rich friends and/or a household name.)
Yep, there is that moment especially in post when the movie starts to talk back to you and indirectly tell you what it wants to be. Just like raising kids. The awareness to listen and the courage to respond is the moment I long to find myself in - for better or worse.
Hal is selling CDs and DVDs to get his film made? I don’t understand how that’s an affective strategy these days anymore. Hope I’m wrong or maybe someone could swoop in with a bucket of cash? He is Hal Hartley after all and this isn’t his first rodeo. I’m curious about the crowd funding strategies that are getting movies made by directors who don’t have name recognition but just a great project. The most I’ve been able to successfully raise for about 5 projects in the past has been under $10k. It was successful but it was a lot of work. Not sure I’ll do it again. Someone once told rising 10k could be just as much work as rising 6 figures. I believe them.
I too would love to hear more about crowd funding strategies for directors without name recognition. Hopefully someone will share their knowledge! It's true, in my limited experience, it was too exhausting to go do it a second time!
I've done two successful Kickstarter projects: one for $50K and one for $90K. I have no name recognition. My wife said she'd divorce me if I ever did another Kickstarter campaign, as it was so hard and created so much anxiety in our family (she's since lifted her threat). Still it's so damn hard and has nothing to do with actual filmmaking. Managing rewards is ridiculously complicated (we had nearly 2000 backers on our last film): addresses change, T-shirt sizes were wrong, postage rates change, people request different rewards. Oy!
Despite this, if you move forward and do a Kickstarter campaign, one thing I learned is the importance of having something fresh and exciting to get through the mid-campaign slump when you're still far away from your goal and most folks are burnt out from hearing you plead for backers -- for both of our campaigns this was critical (we did a spoof commercial for one and it worked super well).
Also having a backer who matches pledges is super helpful. We had a guy who was going to donate a couple of thousand dollars and we asked if we could make it contingent on matching pledges and he agreed. So more people donated because they felt they were getting two for one.
Another thing: I strived to raise 10% of my goal on the first day -- that catches the attention of Kickstarter and increases your chances of being featured as "Project of the Day." We did a lot of work -- like two months' worth -- prior to launching.
The main reason I don't ever want to do another Kickstarter campaign is because of backer expectations -- some backers on Kickstarter (IMHO) feel like stockholders as opposed to donors -- and this causes problems for a creative project if you don't want community input. We had a handful of small-ish backers who acted like trolls. They hassled us non-stop and seemed to complain about everything. Ugh! It was hell. These were for donations of $10 or less. This went on for years.
The other reason I don't want to do another Kickstarter is due to the heightened censoring of crowd-funding on social media and in traditional media: it's so much harder to get attention than it used to be. I'm convinced that algorithms weed out posts for Kickstarter and throttle back anything that says, "support" "donate" "backer" "help" etc. The same with traditional media: recently the two largest newspapers in our state said they no longer covered crowd-funding projects because they get so many requests to do so.
Now try to get attention for your Kickstarter project without social media or newspaper coverage with no name recognition.
Bottom line, if you have the right product (which a film might not be) Kickstarter is incredible and revolutionary and an extraordinary tool. However, it also can be a nightmarish journey that has nothing to do with the creative work of filmmaking, leaving you cursing anything that is a happy bright green like Kickstarter's logo.
Thanks for sharing so much on crowdfunding James. It could be a post unto itself!
Using crowdfunding to assist in getting a film out there can work (I've done it myself,) and over the years I've figured out what alchemy works best to determine which approaches will likely succeed. I've helped fund around 100 projects through various platforms of crowdfunding, the majority of them film related, and have about a 95% success rate picking projects early in their offering that end up being successful. (I'm hoping that success rate won't take a dip with Hal Hartley's latest re-attempt. I funded it the first time round and re-committed to this one. I'm completely baffled by the numbers he's getting this time around, though.)
The key for all of the successful campaigns I've backed is the personalization and full attention given by the filmmakers to the separate goal of the funding campaign itself. Personalized in, you get to know the filmmakers who are behind the project and what drives them. More importantly than the film they're trying to make, I end up backing filmmakers I can believe are driven by the right motivations towards their goals. If I can ferret out their personality and feel like they'd be successful in life, I have no problem in giving money to get them over this current hurdle. Most of the time, I've been proved right, often backing a second or third funding project or watching the filmmaker go on to bigger and better things, no, longer needing the crowd's assistance to get the next on in the can.
As for the question of notoriety- or lack thereof- in raising sufficient sums, I've seen the following in the projects I've backed on Kickstarter (I think you can look at my profile on there and see the list of previously backed projects.)
Unknown (or known for something else) short films can get $50,000 to get their films done. Several I've backed have reached those levels and they were unknown to me before I saw their campaign. Some short films have hit incredible highs (e.g. Kung Fury short film - $630K)
Feature documentaries done by unknowns (or those not known for docs): Several have reached the $80K+ range of funding, and gone on to produce wonderful, award winning fare. (e.g. Be Natural, the story of Alice Guy Blache raised $219K and contributed to a resurgence in the early cinema maven's work recognition.)
Feature narratives from those branching out their notoriety in other ways: I've backed people's first features who've come from other areas to much success. Some like Zach Braff's first film Wish I Was Here ($3M raised) set him up as a proven director with a great eye and he's gone well beyond the Kickstarter funded realm for his latest film works. And the Veronica Mars movie was funded by fans (to the tune of $5M) as a proof of concept that there was still interest in the old TV show when there wasn't as much financial interest in it without that display.
Of course, anyone can pick apart crowdfunding and say, "But when you consider this [insert some single point that, for them completely nullifies the crowdfunding benefits]", or "They could have done it through traditional means," it misses the point that, those of us that traditionally are part of the "crowd" of crowdfunding know all those aspects. What we're traditionally funding is a belief in the people themselves that want to do something and need a bit of help. That's why the personalization of the campaign carries such weight. If you show yourself and why you are passionate about your project, people will click whether you're famous or not. And if the campaign is structured properly (a whole other long post would be need to go into how to do that,) to make the funder feel appreciated in helping out, then anyone can have a good chance of being successfully funded, whether it'd be for the full film production, or any specific part needed to get to the finish line (finishing funds, festival campaign funding, etc.)
Hal hits a lot of the marks in campaigns I have no problem funding and so I have. I'm anxious to see whether my previous experiences are still valid. Time and people's proclivities do change. And if the goal posts are moved, then I'll have to do more research and re-evaluate the strategies I recommend for future crowdfunding, including my own.
Fingers crossed.
Way to go, Hal! The team surpassed the kickstarter goal. It proves there is a need looking for fulfillment. And people got to vote with their dollars for this film to be built.
Love this response from Hal, “It involves imagining myself to be not me but someone kind of like me who is approaching the film for the first time. Day after day, I do this. Of course, the most common struggle is to allow myself to admit something I’m quite attached to has, through good work, become superfluous in the course of the film coming together.”
I can imagine this is way easier said than done and also a very necessary practice. I haven’t gotten this far in the process on my first feature yet but it definitely makes me ponder how a filmmakers relationship with their film evolves throughout the process. The key is to ride the wave of evolution otherwise risk getting lost in the rapids of what it was supposed to be.
Re crowdfunding, I’ve done a few for short films (raising up to 16K) but still do not see how this ever becomes a sustainable model for a career. (Unless one has lots of rich friends and/or a household name.)
I think "how a filmmakers relationship with their film evolves throughout the process" will make a great HFF post!
Yep, there is that moment especially in post when the movie starts to talk back to you and indirectly tell you what it wants to be. Just like raising kids. The awareness to listen and the courage to respond is the moment I long to find myself in - for better or worse.
100% agree!