Let's talk numbers

starcentral

starcentral

Veteran
Anyone here get a all rights deal in a country for a micro budget feature and willing to through some actual sales figures around and licensing term length?

For a genre film (thriller, horror, action, family) with no names I've been given figures of $5000 for a micro budget feature film which had a budget of $250k and under.

I was hoping to get out to AFM this year to do some more face to face research but couldn't make it, I'm curious if any fellow DVX'ers have any good details to share and pass along in general around "sales figures and projections".

cheers,
 
Last edited:
Numbers will vary wildly.

Micro budget films with no names will rarely get any MG (upfront money) from distributors.

Territories overseas vary greatly. From $250 to 10K or more per country. Again, depends on how those buyers value the project. That's why the names are so important because they add a perceived value (well, not perceived if it actually means sales) over unknown actors.

The market is rougher now for microbudgets but the good news is that it's micro budgeted. The market is even rougher for low-budget features who are not getting MGs either. More $ risked and to make up.

-M
 
So is anyone willing to discuss actual sales of their films, budgets, and what it took to get them sold? Too much to ask?
 
Hi Ryan, it could be no one is willing to share online in public, but hey I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.

One thing I do know, is that the budget to make your film doesn't necessarily translate into higher or lower sales. So spending money really where it counts is probably your best bet, along with really good development of the script.
 
It's a darn good question. I have been involved with a couple of low budget feature projects that have been screened at festivals, four walled and limited art house release but not distribution other than Amazon, iTunes and Netflix renters. I wonder what the return on that is. I should just muster the guts to ask. I think they were able, through VERY hard work, to make back their bank of around $500K. If you can just make that back, you're in business.

I'm also interested in cable markets for series (been involved in a few of those) and cable markes like We and Lifetime for movies. I know Reel One has a presence there. Anything more you can share about that?
 
It is a lot to ask for, but I imagine if you went through this you would know the deals off the top of your head. I have just seen so many low budget features get produced and I have never understood how any of them make a dime. I realize that filmmaking is a business, but I really fail to see how.
 
If they see marketed, they can make money. If you go through self distribution you will need to do your own marketing, or pay someone to do it for you. Conversely if you hire a sales agent, who might want you to agree to $30k - $50k in marketing expenses, then in affect you are paying for the marketing anyways. Plus they have the contacts and network to get you distribution around the world if you hire the right sales agent.

The point is, if your film is actually any good, and is marketed, it will sell. I dont see it any other way. Except I'm curious to know if anyone wants to share some stories.

:)
 
Last edited:
I've got a genre film produced in 2010 that did 18 festivals in 2011/2012, released on DVD and VOD here in Sweden (domestically) April 2012 and Swedish national TV in June 2012, limited VOD in the UK (thehorrorshow.tv) June 2013 and globally on VOD (iTunes, Google Play, Amazon Prime, Vudu, YouTube rental, MGO, XBox) April 2014.
Budget was $150,000, it got great reviews all over the place (4/5 Empire Magazine, 3/4 Fangoria etc) and I've got a well known character actor in a supporting role.
I also tried Vimeo on Demand for a year between July 2013-July 2014. Haven't tried VHX.

Can't say I want to discuss numbers in public on a forum like this, but I'll say this much: They're not good. In fact, they're worse than you can imagine probably.

The biggest problems are piracy and a completely over saturated market. Those problems are huge. The moment your film is released on any kind of platform, it'll be online on all the piracy streaming sites as well. Right now, everybody with an iPhone is making features, and just getting seen is difficult as it is. Combine these two problems, and the only conclusion I can come to is that investing the amount of money it takes to make a competitive feature film will not be worth it.
 
It's becoming apparent to me that a no-name-actor, micro budget indie feature probably should be lensed for under $20k in order to have a chance to break even. Even then, I'm not sure that the "I know I've seen that guy from some TV show" level of actor is going to mean much in terms of driving revenue. The one good thing about this is that raising $20k on Kickstarter is not an impossible obstacle. Shooting a film for under $20k in a way that has some level of quality is still pretty challenging, though.
 
keithlango said:
It's becoming apparent to me that a no-name-actor, micro budget indie feature probably should be lensed for under $20k in order to have a chance to break even. Even then, I'm not sure that the "I know I've seen that guy from some TV show" level of actor is going to mean much in terms of driving revenue. The one good thing about this is that raising $20k on Kickstarter is not an impossible obstacle. Shooting a film for under $20k in a way that has some level of quality is still pretty challenging, though.
Click to expand...

Under $20K is probably optimistic. Who knows. I figure, with no names at all, the lower the better. But you know, it's all about how you count. What's a budget? Using your own gear - do you depreciate it according to some tax law? I really don't know. I've spent many (way too, too many) thousands of $ buying film-related gear. If I use it on one film, I can say (1) I spent "X" on gear, or (2) not even mention the cost of the gear as part of the budget, it's a kind of "gift". But what happens if I use the same gear on a second film... do I now count 50% of "X" as part of the budget? And on the third film 33% of "X" is part of the budget? Using your own car, your own resources, paying out of your own pocket for items that never make it into the "budget". I just don't know. I understand that everyone wants to make enough $ to at least break even so that they can make another one, but the truth is, there is so much product out there, that odds are you will never make it financially. I think you have to go into it understanding that you are doing it for love, and accept that you will lose money, unless you get super lottery lucky. So, I figure - spend as little as you can, because it will be all lost.
 
Depressing stuff in here. I agree, there doesn't appear to be much future for filmmakers who want to do it for their livelihood, except for maybe a few hundred or thousand people. How many working writer/directors are there on the planet who feed their families with their income? It's a dream, and for most of us it will never come true.

I think I enjoy filmmaking enough to make films for myself, for my family, for my neighbors. It won't win me the respect of strangers, the attention of women, or the applause of critics, but I think making films for a small audience is still a life worth living.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1932360697?vs=1

I suspect the filmmaker is or will soon be a new form of poet. We make things that we believe have value, but society at large doesn't care. I'm ok with that, for now.
 
Drew Ott said:
Depressing stuff in here. I agree, there doesn't appear to be much future for filmmakers who want to do it for their livelihood, except for maybe a few hundred or thousand people. How many working writer/directors are there on the planet who feed their families with their income? It's a dream, and for most of us it will never come true.
Click to expand...
Probably a lot more than you think. But many of them shoot industrials, weddings, commercials, infomercials, webisodes, tutorials- anything but feature films.

The world is awash in badly made, no budget features with no marketing potential.

But there is a huge demand for video in every other possible market, including many markets that most filmmakers have never even heard of.

When you go to jury duty, they show you a video.
When you start a job an any large company, they show you a video.

When you get married, you commision a video.
When you want to market a product, you commision a video,

There are markets for "webisodes" in comedy, romance, instruction, cooking, travel, finance, documentary...

In short, there are market wherever you look, but the market for theatrical features is waaaaay oversold. Even Hollywood has trouble making money there.
 
"I don't make movies to make money - I make money so I can make more movies."

-Walt Disney

Just about sums it up (although Disney is one of the few who actually did make money). My own experience: 5 years, 3 features, one sold to satellite, all distributed nationwide on DVD, two on Itunes and other streaming, each made for the price of a good used 5 year old car. Nowhere near break even. Very glad to have other income sources.
 
arniepix said:
... In short, there are market wherever you look, but the market for theatrical features is waaaaay oversold. Even Hollywood has trouble making money there.
Click to expand...
Don't be afraid for Hollywood. Big studios, big stars and their executives are still making a mint.

In terms of sales, Edward Burns once had a piece in some mag that he grossed about $800K for "Nice Guy Johnny". It was shot on 5D MK II with no designed lighting (i.e., they used only natural daylight or practicals) for $25,000 on Long Island, where Burns was allowed to use properties of friends and acquaintances. Of course, him being Ed Burns probably had something to do with being allowed to roam free around these multimillion dollar mansions.

In that interview, someone mentioned about Louis CK doing a live standup show on PPV via iTunes and grossing about a million off that alone.

But these are "names".

The micro-mini-low-no budget features really need some sort of a united muscle behind it. In other words, it needs a marketing agency that would take a cut - (~ 50% seems reasonable, sort of like a theatrical portion of the gross) but would serve as a clearing house for the small films. The streaming platform investment should be fairly negligible and the marketing costs - whatever they are - would have to be covered out of the marketing company's share. The problem with Vimeo, VDX, Vudu and so on is that the filmmakers know all about them but the potential clientele does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top