taboo kickstarter question.

Something that often gets overlooked by critics of crowdfunding is that is also serves as a kind of filter. if the support isn't there, it doesn't get made. that's true of kickstarter at least. some filmmakers have circumvented this practice on indiegogo where you can keep anything you raise, and as a rule, I don't donate to campaigns unless they are "all or nothing". I don't want to see someone waste my money trying to make a movie for a third of what they said they needed to do it.

with regard to "investment" vs "donation/gift" status of pledges. as hscully noted above, here in the states The JOBS Act will allow non-accreddited investors to invest into crowdfunded projects soon. before this bill passed it was illegal to seek investors on these platforms. Kickstarter has stated that they still won't allow it, but IndieGoGo is expected to embrace the new opportunities. So a day is coming when you can back a movie and potentially get a piece of the action as a non-accredited investor.
 
Gary Huff said:
But it's been abused so much now that I think we're going to see a huge drop off of people actually contributing money. You can only expect the masses to flush their money down your particular toilet for so long.
Click to expand...

This is half right. And half wrong. The trend in the microbudget movie niche over the last year has been for your average crowdfunding campaign to see more than double the number of backers, but an equally significant drop in the amount each backer is willing to donate. campaigns that my friends and I ran in the $30k to $50k range over a year ago found success with about 300 to 400 backers. while filmmakers running good campaigns today are requiring as many as 700 to 900 backers to hit their goal.

the first thing I learned when i ran my campaign was that people were backing me and the other people on the team, not so much the project itself. so this notion of "flushing money down the toilet" doesn't really apply to this space because, for the most part, people have already received what they want for their pledge: it's an expression of good will and support. people who aren't motivated by that sort of thing, don't typically offer the $25 bucks in the first place.

that being said, high profile projects like The Canyons are going to be a stain on crowdfunded movies. but the small guy who is active in the indie film community, who has made real friendships there and who has shown real promise as a filmmaker is going to be tough to beat. the motivation to help someone in which you can see your own hopes and dreams is very powerful. our niche of the crowdfunding space is for people who like seeing people like them make movies. and these campaigns have been a wonderful extension of our community. And I'm very, very grateful to everyone who backed mine. The opportunity to make a crime thriller inspired by my dad's adventures as a smuggler has been one of the best things that's ever happened to me.
 
Zak Forsman said:
the first thing I learned when i ran my campaign was that people were backing me and the other people on the team, not so much the project itself. so this notion of "flushing money down the toilet" doesn't really apply to this space because, for the most part, people have already received what they want for their pledge: it's an expression of good will and support. people who aren't motivated by that sort of thing, don't typically offer the $25 bucks in the first place.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. I realize I was mostly referring to the idea of purchasing a "product".
 
hscully said:
I have contributed for the same reason as most... to help fellow artists, usually ones I know or have worked with. I use Indie Go Go through Fractured Atlas a 501c3 umbrella organization so minus the small perqs those donations are tax deductible. We think that provides an incentive for larger donors.

For the OP. Check this out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2012/11/06/inside-the-jobs-act-equity-crowdfunding-2/

There are changes coming regarding crowd funding and equity with the passing of the JOBS Act in April 2012 that may provide a solution to funding small concerns. I am very interested in this development.

"With the launch of the JOBS Act, short for Jumpstart Our Business Startups, the ability for the general public to receive company equity in exchange for funding is now a possibility.... Now that the JOBS Act has passed, the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has been instructed by Congress to step in and monitor the new changes before the Act can take effect for equity crowdfunding...The SEC exists to regulate financial Federal laws, and protect the public from potential fiscal misuse regarding these laws.... The SEC is still hammering out its rules. The commission was given until January 2013 to set the rules, but is widely expected to miss that deadline." - Forbes

It's coming soon that you will be able to used crowdfunding to garner investment but for now it's all donations for me, all the way through, tax-deductible!
Click to expand...

I just wanted to make sure that what hscully said did not go by unnoticed. The changes to crowdfunding are a HUGE deal. This has the potential to fundamentally change the film financing model. This is as much a game changer as online self distribution is.
 
I fall in to Camp Gordy on this. If a project has solid enough potential, the "crowd" in "crowdfunding" will consist of exactly 2 or 3 persons. Or one even. No man may be an island; but can one man be a crowd? If the pitch has legs, he sure as hell can be...
 
CallaghanFilms said:
I fall in to Camp Gordy on this. If a project has solid enough potential, the "crowd" in "crowdfunding" will consist of exactly 2 or 3 persons. Or one even. No man may be an island; but can one man be a crowd? If the pitch has legs, he sure as hell can be...
Click to expand...
Why does a rich person/entity inherently have more insight into what's good and what's not than a person of typical means? And how does that line of thought jibe with the successful Kickstarter campaigns by people that explicitly want to avoid being beholden to one or two people/entities that control the purse strings? For example, a documentary I worked on called American Winter ended up getting picked up by HBO even though the producers struggled throughout production to secure funding (which came from grants, private donations and crowd funding). It wasn't that the project had little potential but it was a combination of the inherent uncertainty of cinema verite and that the producers wanted to retain create control of the documentary.
 
I've backed 4 projects ($100 or more)....so far 1 has been completed. Personally backed another for a member here & that got finished too. I'm still waiting on SIMILO (I think about two years now?), but I know it will be done someday. I just hope I'm still around to see it!
:happy:
 
No, potentially good (and potentially financially successful) indie projects will come via investors...you know, as they have for fifty-some-odd years.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
No, potentially good (and potentially financially successful) indie projects will come via investors...you know, as they have for fifty-some-odd years.
Click to expand...
So Video Game High School was not potentially good nor potentially financially successful? Amanda Palmer doesn't have anything good going on? Tim Shafer is all tapped out of successful games?

Investors aren't the only game in town anymore. Do we still need investors? Of course, because that's the only way a $150 millon summer blockbuster or franchise video game is going to get financed. But for smaller productions there are a other revenue streams now that didn't exist 50yrs ago. If you are a content creator, hell any sort of creator, and you aren't looking at these new revenue possibilities you are doing yourself a diservice, IMO. I think there are a lot of ideas that are too small for the guys with big pockets and too big for the guys with small pockets and crowd funding is an opportunity for these 'tweener' type projects to get funding.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
I fall in to Camp Gordy on this. If a project has solid enough potential, the "crowd" in "crowdfunding" will consist of exactly 2 or 3 persons. Or one even. No man may be an island; but can one man be a crowd? If the pitch has legs, he sure as hell can be...
Click to expand...

The problem is that 'Gordy' did not mention is... you would have never heard about a 'crowd funded' project, at least in the sense of a 'investor pitch', because 1) that is not how Kickstart is set up, and 2) pitching investments to 'the anonymous' crowd, is against SEC rules on investments... so, the 'crowd' would necessarily be 'one or two', and 'family members', or oddly... the credit card companies..., for 99% of the would be film makers, outside of the Hollywood or the pilot fish of Hollywood.

The usual 'advertisement' about 'stock' goes with the following disclaimer 'this is not an inducement to buy, nor an offer to sell'... weasel wording to be sure, but legally it is not an ad that says clearly 'we need your bux to flush down a rathole'... I mean '... for investing in our project/company/whatever'.

As also mentioned the JOBS Act changes that, and perhaps the SEC will eventually get off its collective 'duff' to effect those changes, so a web site, with a number of film projects, can offer to 'more than one or two' investors the opportunity to invest in some filmmaker's 'rathole'... I mean '...next acclaimed indie motion picture...'
 
adkimery said:
So ...Amanda Palmer doesn't have anything good going on?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure running around in a bra and undies, and having a coin operated boy nearby, helps in the Kickstarter arena... Although, for guys, probably looking like a young Tim Curry would be a major enhancement... don't know if the Meatloaf type would work out as well... a nearly bare bear in a brassiere... ok maybe there's hope... at least in some market segment...
 
adkimery said:
So Video Game High School was not potentially good nor potentially financially successful? Amanda Palmer doesn't have anything good going on? Tim Shafer is all tapped out of successful games?

Investors aren't the only game in town anymore. Do we still need investors? Of course, because that's the only way a $150 millon summer blockbuster or franchise video game is going to get financed. But for smaller productions there are a other revenue streams now that didn't exist 50yrs ...
Click to expand...
Who's talkin' about "studio" or "blockbuster" pictures here??:huh:
I'm referring to private investors of independent films.
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The problem is that 'Gordy' did not mention is... you would have never heard about a 'crowd funded' project, at least in the sense of a 'investor pitch', because 1) that is not how Kickstart is set up, and 2) pitching investments to 'the anonymous' crowd, is against SEC rules on investments... so, the 'crowd' would necessarily be 'one or two', and 'family members', or oddly... the credit card companies..., for 99% of the would be film makers, outside of the Hollywood or the pilot fish of Hollywood.

The usual 'advertisement' about 'stock' goes with the following disclaimer 'this is not an inducement to buy, nor an offer to sell'... weasel wording to be sure, but legally it is not an ad that says clearly 'we need your bux to flush down a rathole'... I mean '... for investing in our project/company/whatever'.

As also mentioned the JOBS Act changes that, and perhaps the SEC will eventually get off its collective 'duff' to effect those changes, so a web site, with a number of film projects, can offer to 'more than one or two' investors the opportunity to invest in some filmmaker's 'rathole'... I mean '...next acclaimed indie motion picture...'
Click to expand...
It'll implode in spite of the SEC.
 
And lets not forget about the potential "investor". Most of them, if it is a true investment, will be savvy enough to see if a pitch has the right ingredients. So don't expect any changes in the rules to immediately change the game. If something doesn't get funded, there is a reason for it.

If it can't get donations........there is no logical reason to believe some angel investor is going to throw money at it either. Investors want to recoup their money. And throwing it at something they feel hasn't got a snowball's chance....usually doesn't fit into their investment potfolio model.

75% of the stuff on KS I see, I wouldn't invest in, nor would I donate to. The pitches are sloppy and most resemble panhandler pitches "give me money so I can do something without paying for it myself." As a business minded individual, I always ask myself about these flawed pitches....."If it's that good......why not tell people in your pitch how much money YOU are putting into it?".

If that seems harsh, that's how the world is. The artistic is great......but when you want to use my money to do it, you better believe I am going to take an extremely hard look at your project and those doing it.
 
Last edited:
what do i get out of it? I am rewarded by helping someone take another step toward being a better storyteller, a better filmmaker. I like "discovering" new voices and new works. and it's nice when about a year down the road I get my dvd or blu-ray in the mail and add it to the collection of other titles i've backed. frankly, i do it for the same reason i do most things: because it feels good.
Click to expand...

Dang Zak, that post made me want to give you a hug dude,:) Pretty damn cool there's still people like this around, ones that care, not just about themselves. Seems everybody is so darn self absorbed these days it's a rarity to come accross someone with a heart, especially on the internet.
 
maranfilms said:
Dang Zak, that post made me want to give you a hug dude,:) Pretty damn cool there's still people like this around, ones that care, not just about themselves. Seems everybody is so darn self absorbed these days it's a rarity to come accross someone with a heart, especially on the internet.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this sentiment. I think this site is another great example of people giving back some of their time and energy. Countless times I've seen people offering advice to others (especially new people) that would have cost thousands (in dollars, in hours) otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top