I really have no legit data on the effectiveness of one advertising venue over another or their effectiveness for any specific market.What do you think?
I found an article in this series and thought I'd just plant the whole search list here:
Might be something useful in here.
Will go gold-digging later.
Follow-up with CJ -
What did you you decide to do about promotion posters?
Did you go with that or figure out another approach?
Conversation with others regarding?
Very interested in the results.
Have you considered as far as the demographic most likely interested in your film's genre and their travel routes?
Thank you for taking a moment to say so.This is all really great info Ray, thanks!
Informed audiences identify with Smith due to his off camera persona and Aronofsky and Malick by their recognizable visual styles.Securing a donation for a singular project is great.
However, we all know securing a new customer is ten times more difficult than re-selling to an existing satisfied customer.
A single donation fails to build a lasting relationship.
Multiple donations from an individual donor across several projects builds that "long-time donor loyalty" relationship the above study identifies. (I believe this is the approach that Kevin Smith actively promotes. His fans seem more loyal to him than to his film projects, IMO. Darren Aronofsky and Terrence Malick seem to have similar loyal following, but largely due to interest in their visual story telling style.)
Step 3: Prize Investor Motivation With a Personalized Platform
We also changed where the button took them. Not to PayPal or a basic donate page. Instead, we created the Social Investment Center—a new platform where potential investors could learn more about GPI and make social investments based on their own motivations.
The Social Investment Center first asks one question in bright red: “What is your motivation?”
The options are People, Places, and Journalism, which link to program descriptions and real budget lines so potential investors can choose exactly how their investment is spent.
For example, one new GPI social investor is a former Peace Corps volunteer in India. When asked for his motivation, he selected Places, then clicked India. There, he found a description of a new specialty-reporting seminar for our reporters in India, “Reporting Modern Slavery.”
Interested, he clicked the Invest Now link, which led him to a more detailed program description and three investment options—$168, $70, and $21—that specifically detailed what each would pay for.
On Jan. 15, the investor selected the option to invest $70, which paid a month’s salary for one GPI reporter in India. He made the same social investment again on March 12 and wrote:
“When I first clicked thru here I was intrigued by the concept. After investing $70 and seeing the immediate result of the money, I am hooked! Thank you for sending me a copy of the story my investment paid for on women trapped in the cycle of poverty and resorting to surrogacy as a way out. It was indeed a unique story and so well done. I hope this investment can also go to Fozia who is doing great work thanks to your program. Sincerely, Arthur T.”
#3 is EXACTLY what I was pointing out in the latter part of post #5 above about seeking a donation... er... "investment" of additional information in lieu of providing a (preferred) cash donation.
I like this option a lot.
Seek out "Why?" the people that visit your crowdsource site do what they do, (or don't do!)
Thank you for taking a moment to say so.
I really don't know if our fellow IT-ers find these darn-near monologue ramblings of mine more quixotic or pragmatic.
One vote works for me.
>> I am interested in asking an IT member with a "shovel ready" screenplay that has NOT secured sufficient KS/IGG funding to proceed with production to volunteer for the following experiment: <<
- Re-launch the KS/IGG campaign with a makeover.
- Skip the usual $10, $20, $50, $100, $200, blah blah blah route.
- Have two, maybe three, levels of levels. A group around $20, $50, and $100.
- At each level have three sub-level groups being a dollar below, at, and above each.
Ex:- Each sub-level is for supporting which aspect of the film the donor is interested in supporting: Cast, Crew, Equipment, Location, etc..
$19, $20, $20
$49, $50, $51
$99, $100, $101.
One donor chooses to support "Cast" at $19 or $49 or $99.
Another donor values production more than acting and donates to support "Crew" at $50.
Another donor will support "Equipment" at $21 and "Cast" at $99.
The idea is to GIVE the donor more control in their donation beyond just throwing their money at your project; who knows where that precious $50 is actually being spent?
Great!For sure man, I'm soaking all this up haha. Before too long here we'll be launching our own, this is gold to me.
By limiting the amount that can go to any certain area, it looks like you're more thought through and you can be honest that while 100 people gave a total of $5k to you actor fund when you really needed $3, the other $2k can make up the deficit for the $20 raised for film audio haha.