Short Film Funding

Millionaire millionaire strife. Prestige is a good motive. But is there any other benefits?
No.

There is a benefit to you, the filmmaker, but not to the investor.
An investor want to make money. A sponsor want to help you as a
person. And that’s why it is very difficult to find a sponsor.



For example Appstore, a huge audience and low prices, $ 3-5 per copy would be completely paid off 10 000 budget. In addition, the potential profit.
There is always a “potential” profit. We can find a few examples
to prove it. We can find places to sell a movie. What you have to
do is show that YOUR movie will sell. Show similar movies that
have sold 4,000 copies at $3 and you have potentially profitable
movie.

And investors are not looking for the rare example - they want
some real, hard numbers to show it happens.

So I want to know what the same way I can convince them.
Maybe you can tell what benefit can be provided to sponsors.
There is no magic way to convince people who don’t know you to
give you money to make a movie. In your case the chance of making
a profit are very, very slim. So you need to talk to people who
believe in you as a person and filmmaker. People who will give you
money that can afford to lose to support you on a personal level.
The benefit to a sponsor is they help someone they believe in.
 
Investors want more than what you think. They want numbers.

Show the sponsor or investor ten short films that were well received
at festivals that made a profit and you have a good business plan.
 
Financing a short film is basically asking people to pile their money in the middle of the floor and set it on fire because there is less than a .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance they will ever get a dime of it back.
 
Yes, I certainly understand that. I am interested in as many opportunities as possible to get money.

You can tell how much can hinder cooperation with foreign investors / sponsors?

How does this all sounds scary:)
 
By the way, you're not thinking about digital distribution? For example Appstore, a huge audience and low prices, $ 3-5 per copy would be completely paid off 10 000 budget. In addition, the potential profit.

Just to echo the others, shorts alone don't make money. They best you get out of a short is funding to make a feature IF it's that good.

Digital distribution isn't viable for shorts. Have you or anyone you known ever paid to see one? I can sit all day and watch shorts for free on YouTube and Vimeo (not to mention TV shows on Hulu that length-wise compare with a short) and lots of other websites and do it every day for months and not see the same thing twice. Why should I pay to watch your short?

The best bet for funding a short is self funding. If you need $10k, then work extra shifts and save all you can to get it. It'll take the same amount of effort and probably time approaching investors except with the saving route you're actually likely to get it.

Or, if you actually think you can make money off your product, take out credit cards or a loan and take the risk on yourself. You'll then own 1--% of the product and actually make more profit it it does indeed make money. Of course, in the likely event it doesn't, then you're in trouble.

We don't want to be mean about it, it's just historically how it goes. If we're wrong though, prove it. It would be awesome news for all of us to find a way for shorts to make a decent profit.
 
For example, if theoretically persuade investors to invest in the film. Show him the number. If the contract does not provide for a mandatory payment in any case, the investor runs the risk itself. It's a business.
 
Well, I understand that this is very individual. There are no general rules as to convince investors. But really sad that so few ways to get money for the film. It's cultural heritage.

But with what money was withdrawn so many short films?
 
Last edited:
For example, if theoretically persuade investors to invest in the film. Show him the number. If the contract does not provide for a mandatory payment in any case, the investor runs the risk itself. It's a business.
Exactly right!

It's a business. Most filmmakers do not look at the business side. They
feel if a movie does well at festivals it will make money - with no proof.
They feel if the movie is available for download at $3 to $5 more than
3,500 people will pay to download it - with no proof. Investors look at
the business aspect. They want to see what movies have been downloaded
over 3,000 times and what movies did well at festivals and then made
a profit.

This is called a business plan. Very few filmmakers ever generate a business
plan. Even fewer put together a realistic one.
 
But that is usually a business plan for a movie? For example, a list of similar successful films, with the numbers. Promotion plan, marketing, what else?

But it's all so complicated. No matter how good a short film, he still will not bring big profits.

It's awful. Investing in short films, it sounds ridiculous.

Here is a short film directors?
 
Last edited:
Meaningful and entertaining films are a cultural heritage.
Cr@p is still cr@p.

Consumer art is business.

Seriously, the only way I know of to make money off of shorts is to make little 30 to 120 second snippets for kid's show networks. If they like your stuff for time filler they might contract you for another handful. If your content (see, you just got commoditized!) tests well with kids you theoretically could put together a 30min show.

That's as good as it gets for shorts.

When you spend $10k what do you expect to have to show for it?
A used car? Part of a college education? Down payment on a house?
What is an "investor", a person or governing council with a multitude of investment options, going to expect for $10k?

I believe the proper person you're looking for is a speculator, or patron of the arts.
 
Last edited:
But that is usually a business plan for a movie? For example, a list of similar successful films, with the numbers. Promotion plan, marketing, what else?

But it's all so complicated. No matter how good a short film, he still will not bring big profits.

It's awful. Investing in short films, it sounds ridiculous.

Here is a short film directors?
Almost everyone here makes (or has made) short films. Those that
haven't are planning to make a short film.

You're right, a business plan is complicated. I think that's why most
filmmakers don't even think of the business side when asking about
money. But people with money think about it.

And you are also right that no matter how good a short film is it will
not bring big profits. The harsh reality is it will not bring any profits.
How many times per month to you pay to watch a shot film? If YOU
don't, why do you think others might?

Those of us here who are making short films pay for them ourselves.
We get friends and family do donate a little money and to donate their
time. Most of us here are not spending $10,000 on a short film. My
most expensive short film (shot on 16mm film) cost about $2,200.

Maybe you need to make a less expensive movie?
 
A business plan is not so much difficult as meaningless.

Five days of shooting in a rented studio and equipment worth $ 2000. But I have to pay the crew. This I do not consider payment of CG personnel. They work practically for free.
 
Pretty much why I skipped making a [complete] short film and went right to a feature, personally.

Take the advice here, maybe try to see if you can do the short for ten times less than what you quoted in the initial post, then just get the experience.

Otherwise, 10K is a third of the way toward 30K, and for 30K I'm doing a feature, not a short.
 
Last edited:
I've actually spent about 10K total on 3 shorts, BUT they were/are my film school. I had only the vaguest idea what I was doing. If I had made a feature first it would have been godawful. I'm just now getting to the point I think I could pull one off.
 
Back
Top