> Indie Film Marketing & Promotion

Sort by date Sort by votes
Ray, How effective would be plastering posters across different cities that has a quick provocative point and a link to the Films site?
Say I pay ten people in ten different larger cities to plaster a 100 or so of those posters?
Trying to plan cheaply for after my first feature.
What do you think?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
cjnixon said:
What do you think?
Click to expand...
I really have no legit data on the effectiveness of one advertising venue over another or their effectiveness for any specific market.

Knee jerk opinion (worth twenty pesos!): There are likely more effective means to attract interest to a film project than by using posters, even strategically placed in appropriate areas.
Cost-benefit ratio is likely high, IMO. (IOW, a HIGH cost for the benefit.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
In an oblique fashion, I appreciate and understand a core concept within the following article, although not the article's primary message of "Homework done once and used once is a waste", (which it is, that's just beyond my interest.)
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/open_philanthropy/

"So you know what it is like to search for projects or organizations that have been vetted: due diligence has been conducted; giving opportunities are posted; you can get feedback directly from the recipient organization, see what other donors are doing, and see what kind of feedback is available; and add your own insights to the data available on that organization. This is an efficient use of data and due diligence—collect it once, share it often, and build it publicly.

Now how many of you have ever applied for funding to a foundation? The process is a little different. Instead of posting the opportunities and letting the money find them... every foundation applicant needs to produce a customized proposal, fill in the background research, present the evidence, and make their case. And the foundation receives this information, invests time and money into vetting the proposal, and then files the information. Whether or not they make a grant, the information about the community or the issue disappears into their vaults forever. In a best-case scenario, the due diligence by each funder unleashes one grant. In the usual scenario, the due diligence results in no grant and no information sharing on what was proposed."

Let's begin by making some terminology parallels for substitution purposes.
1. Non-Profit Orgaization = Crowdsourcing Indie Filmmaker
2. Proposal Application = Film Funding Request (indiegogo/kickstarter)
3. Foundation = Target Donor

Thus...

"A non-profit organization provides a
proposal application to a
foundation which must vet the proposal before accepting or declining it."

... is equal to...

"A crowdsourcing indie filmmaker provides a
film funding request to a
target donor which must vet the film funding request before accepting or declining it."


This is essentially correct.
We, as filmmakers, beseech to whomever we can to review our proposed film, decide if it's "worthy" of their cash donation, and to choose to accept or decline our proposal.

Although our target audience certainly is unlikely to go through any formal review process they surely engage in some "worthiness" estimation of the project's intrinsic merit + your own capabilities in sucessfully executing the project.
This ESTIMATION DATA is what we should ALSO be interested in acquiring.

If this parallel is agreeable to your sensibilities then I would suggest becoming familiar with successful non-profit organization strategies for acquiring funding from your/our target audiences, itself a defining activity to seperate "target audience" from simply "anyone and everyone", which is likely not the best approach at all.


To pursue the additional ideas from the article, there is more "value" to acquire from the target audience than ONLY cash.
"Here are three easy things you can do to help unlock foundation information:
1. Ask them for it. You know the old adage, when you want money ask for advice? When you’re asking foundations for money, also ask them for the data they have on an issue. As you use online giving platforms ask for data from foundations. If you use a foundation’s grants list as a resource in your own giving—let them know that and share that information online.

2. Give them permission to share your information. Proactively suggest to foundations that it’s OK with you for them to share your proposal with other funders. Encourage them to seek partners on your behalf.

3. Show them what their data look like. Show them what we know. Here’s where we need data hackathons that include foundation data, apps that mix private funding sources with public data streams, and trend analyses (like DonorsChoose is asking for) that make sense of the information the funders are sitting on. Go to the Foundation Center’s website (the Glasspockets site it hosts has information on the open sharing practices of foundations) and map that data with your public datasets—show them what is possible."

As applies to us filmmakers:
1. In our crowdfunding proposals straight-out ask/inquire/challenge all who review the site (whether or not they do or don't decide to make a donation/accept your proposal at this time) for advice.
You may not get their cash, now. However, they may give you information as to what your proposal could provide that would change their mind.

2. Encourage the target audience to discuss & link your campaign proposal to their own forums for further discussion.
The idea is to "spread the infection" as wide as possible. Promote "carriers" if making them "the infected" doesn't work.
If the audience member is unwilling to link elsewhere, promote open discussion from your campaign page.

3. Ask your viewers to provide data on both similar and dissimilar crowdsourcing campaigns (film or other) they did donate to, those that they considered but ultimately declined, and reasons for outright declines.
Provide evidence that you are open minded to modifying your own campaign to accomodate legitimate advice.
168​

Cash is undeniably good.
But the available data that you're simply not considering also has value and shouldn't be "left on the table".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Seem (unflatteringly) familiar regarding fundraising "updates"?

http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/most_messages_fail._send_ones_that_work
(Yeah, I Franken-edited/organized the information from the article.)

"Many [donation seekers] underestimate the intelligence of their constituents by sending out scores of “updates” and other messages that are really just thinly disguised pitches for money. This can be taken as patronizing and can leave recipients feeling as though they’ve been reduced to a human credit card. In any event, most messages fail to achieve the desired outcome...

Most messages are pitches; they are often a request for money with the veneer of being educational. Statistics prove that doesn’t work...

If you achieve engagement, and you educate, you have a far better chance of getting the recipient to take the action you desire.

In creating a message, the first step is to clarify for yourself what action you seek to inspire."


Better approach:
"Successful messages need to contain three elements. They need to engage, to educate, and to inspire action. When you set about creating a message, give careful thought to each of these elements.

First, you must decide whether to send or post a message at all. Unless it’s truly important for the recipient, don’t bother...More importantly, as low—and generally dropping—open and click-through rates suggest, recipients ignore the vast majority of the emails they receive.

Second, keep it short. In the case of audio-visual communications [ie. Kickstarter & IndieGoGo videos], that means 30 to 60 seconds.
For traditional email, it’s best to focus on one single point, and seek to drive a single action related to that point.

Third, personalize the message and demonstrate to the recipient that you not only know something about them, but you genuinely believe that the message is useful to them.
Messages should... reflect the author’s genuine conviction that the content is valuable.

If you don’t have true enthusiasm for what you are sharing, you can’t expect to engage the recipient."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
I found an article in this series and thought I'd just plant the whole search list here:
http://www.ssireview.org/tags/Marketing+&+Communication

Might be something useful in here.
Will go gold-digging later.

BOL everyone.



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?
TIA. :)
Click to expand...

Haven't decided yet. I've got awhile before i even can start prodcution on the film i had planned this on.

Was just trying to get a plan ready to try and maket said film.

I might do a test run with the poster idea with a short film or no budget film and see how much traffic i could potientially get just from one city.

Will try and let you know how it turns out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This "looks like" useful information, but I'm having a difficult time making a definable application of it's four "Dragonfly Wings" to marketing our films.
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_dragonfly_effect

"Why the dragonfly? The dragonfly is the only insect able to propel itself in any direction when its four wings are working in concert. It symbolizes the importance of integrated effect and is akin to the ripple effect—a term used in economics, sociology, and psychology to indicate how small acts can create big change. To us, the Dragonfly Effect shows how synchronized ideas can be used to create rapid transformations through social media.

The method relies on four essential skills, or wings: 1) focus: identify a single concrete and measurable goal; 2) grab attention: cut through the noise of social media with something authentic and memorable; 3) engage: create a personal connection, accessing higher emotions, compassion, empathy, and happiness; and 4) take action: enable and empower others to take action. Throughout this process, we use the tools of design thinking, a creative approach to experimenting with and building up ideas. Design thinking meshes with the Dragonfly method because it quickly takes people through a series of steps, starting with empathy and moving to hypothesis creation and then to rapid prototyping and testing."

Anyone else wanna dig through this for some actionable take-aways, ideas, or comparables?



"Wing 1: Focus Your Goal
They didn’t get lost in the size of their challenge. They didn’t try to sign up every single South Asian in the San Francisco Bay Area. Instead they focused on those who were well connected to others and who could relate to Bhatia and his story. Those types of people were easy to identify, and the scope of the challenge quickly came into focus.

Wing 2: Grab Attention
Not every social media campaign can grab attention through life-or- death stories. Most need to impress through originality or take people by surprise.

When working to grab attention in a social media campaign, we suggest four design principles: 1)personal: create with a personal hook in mind; 2) unexpected: people like consuming and then sharing new information—draw them in by piquing their curiosity; 3) visual: show, don’t tell—photos and videos speak millions of words; and 4) visceral: design the campaign so it triggers the senses through sight, sound, hearing, or taste.

Wing 3: Engage
If Wing 2 of the Dragonfly Effect is about getting people to notice your cause, Wing 3, Engage, is about what happens next—compelling people to care deeply. Engage is arguably the most challenging of the four wings, because engaging others is more of an art than a science. Engagement has little to do with logic or reason. You might have brilliant arguments to explain why people should get involved, but if you can’t engage them emotionally, they won’t be swayed.

Hughes’s revolutionary contribution to MyBO was using social media not just to capture people’s attention but also to enable them to become activists (without a single field staffer telling them how). These activists became a team—initially gathering online and then coordinating offline events to evangelize their cause.

Wing 4: Take Action"
No cogent explanation was really given for the nebulous "Take Action."
Sounds good, though! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alright.
Well, I'm done with the last publicly available post of Stanford's "Marketing & Communication" tags (which I though warranted it's own thread) and moving onto their plain old "Fundraising" articles.
http://www.ssireview.org/tags/fundraising

Ya'll want some funds, right?
Frequently?!
Oh, okay. :lol:



Wow.
Those first four articles sucked.
Hardly any more style than substance, of which there was a mote.
I hope these guys aren't being paid.
And I hope they don't get journalistic credit for writing these.



Anyways...

Lettuce see if we can apply the following four steps to our film fundraising efforts:
Four Steps to a New Online Fundraising Strategy
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/four_steps_to_a_new_online_fundraising_strategy

"After careful consideration, a new strategy emerged. In four steps we were able to revamp our online giving culture and more than triple the number of monthly online donations for the last six months! Here’s how:

Step 1: Customize Vocabulary
GPI migrated away from the traditional NGO language of “charity,” “gifts,” and “donors,” and toward a more action-based vocabulary that emphasized the “value” and “impact” of investments. On Oct. 1, 2010, GPI changed all language—“gifts” became “social investments” with double and triple bottom lines, “donors” became “social investors,” etc.

Step 2: Rearrange the Online Puzzle Pieces
We then moved our new investment button on the homepage from the right to the left, changed it from round to square, and transformed a text-based ask into an image-based invitation. The new button features gorgeous images and powerful taglines. We also included a roll-over feature that explains the change from “donate” to “invest.”
The results were immediate. Within 90 days, of every 10 people who visited our homepage, six clicked on the new investment button!

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.”​

Step 4: Engage Donors
As Arthur’s note suggests, GPI took three direct action steps after his social investment:
  • Mailed him a thank-you note.
  • Updated him when an article was being produced from his investment.
  • Sent him a link to the published article, along with a link to the same investment option."


I like the idea in #1: Change the vocabulary.
Note the examples from the page suggested in the article: http://globalpressinstitute.org/investment-center/india
In place of "A small social investment of $70 USD will employ and empower a Global Press Institute reporter for one month" consider "A small social investment of $20 USD will employ a [Your Film Project] sound recordist/editor/actor for one hour."

#2 might be rather difficult on a crowdsourcing site, however I imagine a creative could can figure a text-based work-around.

#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!)

#4 is... kinda what most of our KS/IGG crowdsource campaigns do anyway; maybe this suggests we could engage in a more cost effective manner through a simple dialog exchange costing only time & mental effort.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is an interesting way to perpetuate ongoing and active interesting a film everyone's already giddy at the starting gate to see:
https://www.weylandindustries.com/#/main


Anyone here have the time and resources to prepare this level of your-story's-universe expanding audience engagement?

I think this is becoming increasingly a social media requirement rather than a fool's diversion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
Please do!
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?
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered it yet. Of course, nearer to the time i would consider that.
Right now i figured generic places, like movies rental stores. Blockbuster and such. Maybe tape them on Redboxes or near them?(Probably not aloud) and near theatres. This is all still up in the air. Any suggestions are helpful.

Also, came up with another idea. Door to door selling.
Either door to door promotion or selling of the actual dvd or product.

Just a quick thought the other day.

Have your pitch ready. Solid. Quick. Thorough. Explain everything. Give them option to buy dvd or to rent at an online source? This is for selling the dvd.

Could promote door to door with posters? Someone won't answer just tie it to the door. Poster have all details about film, sites and such to see teasers and what not. Or perhaps give out t-shirts or merchandise related to film, but probably getting a bit out of my price range with t-shirts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What's your time window for all the final product ready to be viewed and sold?

Please put as much homework into effective and cost-efficient marketing practices as you have into your film production.


My personal, un-researched concern is that T-Shirts and door-to-door sales both have a high cost-benefit ratios, or the cost will be HIGH compared to the resulting benefit.
I think even if you were selling LotR+PotC+Batman box sets at wholesale prices you'd have a difficult time making the effort worthwhile.
DIY indie films are suuuuuuuch a fetish-like specialty with a fantastically narrow market.


- Identify the primary and secondary genre of your film.
- Positively identify one or two demographics traditionally associated with having great interest in these genres.
- Determine physically and online where these demographics are likely to spend time.
- Rather than spend time beating streets door-to-door, instead, goto the physical locations and people watch for your target demographics. Search for online communities, engage them there.
- With rudimentary information spend comparable t-shirt money at a local marketing firm or three specializing in online promotions. Schedule a follow up meetings to discuss details of where and the frequency they would advertise/promote your indie film.
- Then goto those sites and verify your money is indeed being spent where and with the frequency you were told.
- And goto the physical locations where your posters are, identify potential viewers and ask then about the poster, did they even notice it, what's the film about, and why or why are they not interested in seeing it, how much would they pay to see it, do they watch indie films (or can they even identify what a indie film is)?

Sound near-fetched?




EDIT: FWIW, Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and benefit-cost analysis (BCA) are synonymous.
They're just two different ways of looking at the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit-cost_analysis

1 unit of cost / 2 units of benefit = 0.5 cost-benefit
2 units of benefit / 1 unit of cost = 2.0 benefit-cost

Additional: http://cbkb.org/basics/glossary/
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Another resource not to forget/lose: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Campbell-Company/143021661256?sk=notes

* * * * * * * * * *


http://philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/giving_fundraising_research.aspx

"This fall 2007 study asked donors about their giving and found no statistically significant differences in the size of the most recent online and offline gifts made by more than 900 donors. For all gifts, two-thirds of donations were $100 or less and the median charitable donation was $50. Other Center research has shown that the average donor household gives about $2,000 a year. This study suggests that the vast majority of donors give many small donations."

- Interesting point about online vs. offline donations being equal.
- I believe I've seen KS/IGG data that closely matches that median donation amount.
- The "many small donations" information I find very hopeful and encouraging. The inverse would be not good at all.

"Respondents also provided motivations for giving online:
- 64 percent said they gave online because it is a convenient way to give.
- Another 20 percent offered reasons related to the charity's own online presence:
  • - I got a request with a link to a site;
  • - I could find the site easily;
  • - and other similar statements.
For not giving online,
- 28 percent of respondents said they didn't make an online contribution because they were not asked,
- they couldn't find an online site for the charity they wanted to support, or
- they "just didn't think of giving online." "

I underlined that "because it is a convenient way to give" segment thinking that if in our KS/IGG campaigns we can emphasize that to our page visitors, that donating through KS/IGG is a "convenient way to give."



I found the above article while unsuccessfully hunting for the one cited in the below article:
http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/personally_asking_givers_matters

"The [2009] study... found donors who were asked to give in person by someone they knew gave 19 percent more to secular charities and 42 percent more to religious groups than donors who were asked by phone, mail or email."

Secular charities. That's us.

"And while greater levels of recognition do not necessarily prompt givers to make bigger gifts, the study says, givers who received substantial recognition for their contributions made bigger gifts than givers receiving minimal or moderate recognition.

... if nonprofits expect to get givers’ most significant gifts, “they must build strong personal relationships, acknowledge gifts in accordance with the donor’s wishes, and communicate in ways that build long-term donor loyalty.”"

First, RECOGNITION must be SUBSTANTIAL, not cursory or token.
Do not dismiss how motivating recognition is to decision makers in positions of authority to give.
I suggest reserving "film credit" for only the final two contribution levels of our KS/IGG campaigns, maybe only the final level as executive producer.

Second, suggests what some of you may recall is a point I occasionally advocate, planning our films as a being linked together so that the previous film promotes the current film which promotes the following film, has evidential proof that it could work.

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.)

Single film = single cell organism.
Multiple films linked together = multi-cellular organism.
Sure, there are bazillions of successful single celled organisms, but the magnificent organisms are all multi-cellular.
384​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
PaulGriffith said:
This is all really great info Ray, thanks!
Click to expand...
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. :huh:
One vote :yes: works for me. :)



As a self-check, I reviewed what I've posted so far and would like to elaborate on two points that have had some time for marination, the most recent first.
rayw said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Informed audiences identify with Smith due to his off camera persona and Aronofsky and Malick by their recognizable visual styles.
If your strength is in charisma go with the first.
If your strength is elsewhere develop your filmmaking recognizable visual style.



And then the older idea from post #10 on thread page 1:
rayw said:
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!)
Click to expand...

Lettuce consider combining this idea with a snippet from that last article that the mean/average donation is $50.

KickStarter and IndieGoGo (KS/IGG) both have a progressive or tiered donation system for the right-third column.
Minimum donation is typically $1 followed by whatever incremental system the filmmaker chooses to escalate the donation tiers up a scale to wherever they subjectively believe is "reasonable" for a donor to consider.

But there is no way for the donors to choose WHERE the money is to be spent, ie. Cast, Crew, Equipment, Locations, etc..

Fine.
It's a model that obviously has worked just fine for thousands of projects.

>> 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:
$19, $20, $20
$49, $50, $51
$99, $100, $101.​
- Each sub-level is for supporting which aspect of the film the donor is interested in supporting: Cast, Crew, Equipment, Location, etc..
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?
To carry this one step further, the premium may be as simple as a signed photo of the actor or thank you note from the crew member the donor's contribution DIRECTLY funded as per their wishes.
- The final donation tier will be reserved for "Executive Producer" credit.
No dicking around.
This needs to be a SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION to receive SUBSTANTIAL RECOGNITION.
I'm thinking something equal to or greater than 30% of the goal.


WHERE your audience places VALUE in the overall fimmaking process (as ignorant and uninformed as it may be) is valuable information for writers, directors, and producers.
If you know horror fans don't care about cast but are rabid over props and production value GIVE THAT CONTROL TO THEM!
If you know dramedy fans care about actors and audio more than locations and costumes GIVE THAT CONTROL TO THEM!

People WANT to see the impact they are making.
Point it out to them.
435​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
rayw said:
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. :huh:
One vote :yes: works for me. :)
Click to expand...

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.

rayw said:
>> 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:
$19, $20, $20
$49, $50, $51
$99, $100, $101.​
- Each sub-level is for supporting which aspect of the film the donor is interested in supporting: Cast, Crew, Equipment, Location, etc..
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?
Click to expand...

THIS is brilliant. It would be nice to leave some general donation levels open, but then then have reserved amounts like:

$49 - General Fund. You just want to help, insert quality do-dad as reward. No limit to amount of givers.
$50 - Set Design (maximum of 20 rewards/backers) - Set design related reward
$51 - Craft Service (maximum of 30) - Pays for one meal for cast/crew. Get a mini-cookbook designed by the caterer.
Etc....​

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.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
PaulGriffith said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great! :D


Yeah, man! You're right on top of it!
Exactly. Yeah, there IS going to be "some" level of "representational-ness" to the donation destinations.
Can't argue with that.
WTH do general audience members know about production?
But I believe with this approach we could deliver an ethically appropriate bias in our decision making that we otherwise would not have sufficient audience information to make.

I like your ideas.
"Donate $50 to the craft fund.
Receive a signed group photo of the smiling cast and crew at the craft table as a premium."

My God.
We could further pursue local sponsorship of the craft services tent/area whose logo will be prominently displayed in the photo and on the website "production of" page!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top