What am I doing wrong here?

[Nate North]

As some of you know, I've recently started a Kickstarter campaign to offer Red Epic stock footage for only $1 a clip. But for some reason, we are getting extremely poor traction.

We've made a solid video, followed tons of people on twitter, set up a facebook page and pushed it, written letters to bloggers and sites that would have interest, offered free product for just a retweet or mention, given a 2/1 cupon, announced it on the boards twice, sent it out to all our collective mailing lists, talked to people in person, made phone calls, gotten the word out to several podcasts, and more.

We're edging towards $250. We spent over a grand on the video alone. So we're offering the best deal ever seen, for a product that benefits millions of people, and we're doing terrible.

What exactly Am I doing so wrong? I'm looking at kickstarter pages for hippies that want to build a box kite, and they've got 6 grand in pledges in the same time. Who does that help?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/156967912/the-1-ultra-hd-footage-library

What is so terribly wrong with this? This thing is a huge effort, and a community service, but I get the impression that I'd be getting further with a 6 song EP singing about cats through autotune. Why?

 

[NickClapper]

Last questions,

Nick advised me to tweet 50 times a day and retweet others. Won't that make people unsubscribe? Is that the norm? I've never been on twitter before.

Secondly, when writing to bloggers, where do you find their email links (on wordpress)? I've been to 50 sites and found 2 email addresses. I wrote them each a personal (non form) letter, and got no response from either. Up until 2 days ago, I've never seen so many pages without "contact us" links. I literally don't know how to speak to them.

These are a couple practical things that might help with my traction issue.

I may have been exaggerating slightly about 50 a day but I regularly do 20 a day and I'm not a particularly big tweeter (nor am I trying to raise money for anything). People will only get irritated and unfollow you if you're basically sending spam tweets. So long as you keep them interesting: you're golden.

The best way to contact bloggers (sorry for flogging a dead horse) is through Twitter and/or Facebook. A lot of bloggers won't have contact information readily available on the site but will respond to your tweets and DMs.

 

[cameronchapman]

Okay, I just sent out a message to my one decent contact in the indie filmmaking community. No idea whether he'll help promote it or not, but if he does it could help out. I also tweeted the link to Philip Bloom, just on a whim. He tends to be very open to working with filmmakers and helping them out, so I figured why not? And since I'm not at all affiliated with the project, maybe he'll check it out and pass it along.

I have to admit, though, that I have completely selfish reasons for wanting this project to succeed. And on that note, I'm off to donate so I can get my $1 clips when this thing gets finished.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

You've got the right info on Kickstarter, Paper. Good stuff.

Likewise, amigo.

Your TIPS are exactly what I have in my Crowdfunding pointers. I was like "Has he...has he been reading...are we related?"

Also, I saw the Down and Dangerous campaign yesterday. Real good story behind that one. Definitely a passion project.

 

[harpsichoid]

I always assumed the people who started the campaign pledged themselves a couple of big amounts of money under different names to get it moving.

 

[Papertwinproductions]

I always assumed the people who started the campaign pledged themselves a couple of big amounts of money under different names to get it moving.

It's likely that some do. Most of those involved will pledge their own money to the goal as any other filmmaker would put money away for their projects.

But if they believe that by purely creating alternate accounts and pledging to make it "appear" as though people are interested is going to cause any such interest. It won't.

Kickstarter isn't fickle. There's over 35k members. It's copius amount of work before and during that makes for a successful campaign.

"Fail to prepare, prepare to fail"

 

[Murdock]

Have you considered, you might not be doing anything wrong??

 

[Smith]

Great campaign.

I don't have any spare cash at the moment, but I'll give you a tweet.

Smith

 

[Nate North]

Have you considered, you might not be doing anything wrong??

@smith and Cameron, Thanks

@murdock

That's the first thing I thought.

Got the bill for my half of the equipment for this yesterday.

$65,190.74

Josh has about the same for his half, him lenses, me camera

Then at least 30k in additional costs for the shoot itself. (like a pro tripod and gib is 5 grand)

And for this first 4 days, we're loosing to anyone that can write their name on a t-shirt. So though I can't clearly see it from my perspective, we are most definitely doing something wrong.

The above comments have helped a lot, but I'm kind of bummed out that I seem to have gotten into a popularity contest, rather than an idea/business contest.

Before I give up and start drawing pictures on Ipad covers and posting that, I'll try all the suggestions above, and more. As several above (and lenny kravitz) have said, It's not over till it's over.

Several have said that they think stock footage is a niche market. That's not at all true. It's a huge market, with many companies making millions a year net. There are probably 75 different sites out there with 10's of thousands of clips.

In defense of stock and it's uses, it's good for the following things. Tv commercials, youtube videos, kickstarter promotions, music videos, cgi post, set extension, digital signage, establishing shots in film, amateur filmmakers can use it to set their films in cities or countries they don't have access to, etc.

For you guys on indietalk, (not fishing for donations, already got generous donations from this forum) it's greatest use would be to allow you to quickly and effeciently do advertising work for others. That's what I use it for. Clients are cheap, even big name companies, so you really don't want to take a camera crew out to fill a 3000 dollar ad order. (since the camera crew costs more than you get paid)

Making ads is the day job I work to finance film. It's easy, good practice, and pays great when you can get it. Having a resource like this could be the deciding factor for a lot of people starting out, in terms of being able to get and execute these jobs.

Lastly, we're offering something new here, the availability of RAW footage. For those that don't know what this means, it means that you can color correct the footage yourself, allowing you to match it with the look of your own footage, or just get creative. So this is also a way to train yourself in color correction.

Here's an ad I got $3500 for last year, made from the exact type of stock I'm planning to offer. It cost me about 1300 bucks to make, but at the new prices I'm offering, it would have been 15 bucks, and looked better than this. So this is providing a way for people starting with a low budget to get on their feet (without spending 65 thousand bucks)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKVFhUeMUDI

 

[Papertwinproductions]

Several have said that they think stock footage is a niche market. That's not at all true. It's a huge market, with many companies making millions a year net. There are probably 75 different sites out there with 10's of thousands of clips.

In defense of stock and it's uses, it's good for the following things. Tv commercials, youtube videos, kickstarter promotions, music videos, cgi post, set extension, digital signage, establishing shots in film, amateur filmmakers can use it to set their films in cities or countries they don't have access to, etc.

For you guys on indietalk, (not fishing for donations, already got generous donations from this forum) it's greatest use would be to allow you to quickly and effeciently do advertising work for others. That's what I use it for. Clients are cheap, even big name companies, so you really don't want to take a camera crew out to fill a 3000 dollar ad order. (since the camera crew costs more than you get paid)

Making ads is the day job I work to finance film. It's easy, good practice, and pays great when you can get it. Having a resource like this could be the deciding factor for a lot of people starting out, in terms of being able to get and execute these jobs.

Exactly.

This is why I've taken to the campaign. It is going to assist SO many people if they recognize the possibility and doors it could open.

It's a big, big deal.

 

[directorik]

We're edging towards $250. We spent over a grand on the video alone. So we're offering the best deal ever seen, for a product that benefits millions of people, and we're doing terrible.

What marketing research did you do to come up with millions of people?

I suspect the market for stock footage is not in the millions of people. I
don't know for sure, but then I have never done the marketing research.

What is so terribly wrong with this? This thing is a huge effort, and a community service, but I get the impression that I'd be getting further with a 6 song EP singing about cats through autotune. Why?

I think there is a market for that. Millions like "kitch" and novelty. The
question is; are you actually providing a community service? Do millions
of people need stock footage?

I don't believe most people need stock footage - most filmmakers do not need
stock footage - those that do already have many options available to them.
So the very narrow need is being met. It is possible to break into a narrow
market with excellent product for less than your competitors. The 30 large
you need to start up this business may be turning people off. It's a realistic
number, I suspect most people seeing it just don't see what's in it for them.

I don't think you are doing anything wrong - it seems you are creating a
product few people need.

 

[Kholi]

What marketing research did you do to come up with millions of people?

I suspect the market for stock footage is not in the millions of people. I
don't know for sure, but then I have never done the marketing research.

I have to agree with Rik, here. You may be overselling yourself, Nate. There are a lot of places to acquire stock footage, but these companies are not netting millions of dollars on stock footage alone. Places like Getty are absolutely making more money on Stock PHOTOS...

And, honestly, that's a sector you definitely cannot compete in.

I'm saying this from experience.

I don't believe most people need stock footage - most filmmakers do not need
stock footage - those that do already have many options available to them.
So the very narrow need is being met. It is possible to break into a narrow
market with excellent product for less than your competitors. The 30 large
you need to start up this business may be turning people off. It's a realistic
number, I suspect most people seeing it just don't see what's in it for them.

I don't think you are doing anything wrong - it seems you are creating a
product few people need.

Agreed. Which is not to say that you can't hit your goal, but the buy in being so low may hinder you.

One thing you didn't do in the text area is break down what exactly the money is going toward. You sort of gloss over it in the video, but where is 30K going exactly?

That may help you out.

 

[Nate North]

What marketing research did you do to come up with millions of people?

I suspect the market for stock footage is not in the millions of people. I
don't know for sure, but then I have never done the marketing research.

Do millions of people need stock footage?

I don't believe most people need stock footage - most filmmakers do not need
stock footage - those that do already have many options available to them.
So the very narrow need is being met. It is possible to break into a narrow
market with excellent product for less than your competitors. The 30 large
you need to start up this business may be turning people off. It's a realistic
number, I suspect most people seeing it just don't see what's in it for them.

I don't think you are doing anything wrong - it seems you are creating a
product few people need.

Here's a link to one search on one stock site, showing 30,000 clip results for one word "night"
Many clips have sold hundreds of copies.

So I don't think those comparing stock footage to underwater ping pong paddles in terms of market size have it exactly right.

Let's talk psychology of perception for a moment. When was the last time you saw a jeep? Doesn't seem like there are too many out there. You pass thousands of cars a day, and once in a great while you see a jeep.
But they say if you buy a jeep, then suddenly they start appearing all around you. Every 20th vehicle is a jeep.

So I'm saying that you are seeing stock footage all the time, and just not noticing it. Did you know that many documentary films and television shows rely heavily on stock footage? I'd say TLC and Discovery channel are about 40% stock footage. Academy award winning film Koyaanisquatsi is said to be about 50% stock footage. I'm trying to bring the same resources the studios and networks use within the price range of indie filmmakers, documentary producers, and youtube creators.

Not only are people buying in good volumes, but they are repeat customers, something that film projects lack. Almost everyone on here seems to see the value already, so maybe I'm preaching to the choir.

Is it worth it to filmmakers to each rent a separate plane and fly over a rainforest canopy, for documentaries with 5k budgets? I can do that one time, get 25 different shots of rainforest aerials and everyone on this board and 10 others can now access that imagery for next to nothing. Can you tell the difference between a custom flyover of trees, and a stock one. (nobody say the shining) How about keeping a camera crew active for 5 hours to catch that exact moment when the light shines perfectly through a redwood forest?

Is it really millions of people? Probably not, probably more like 1 million worldwide. But independent filmmakers in the US alone could fund this project 100x over. Right now, if you want to show a plane taking off from LAX, it's going to cost you over 100 dollars, try to do it yourself, and you're paying travel expenses for a crew on a trip to LA. I guess my point is, I'm trying to help everyone out.

Ok maybe I'm being defensive, sorry Rik

PS, if anyone needs a specific kind of shot, just post it, and I'll tell you if we can include it. Car on fire, Body falling into water, English colonial house establishing shot, slow motion fire, whatever. I may make a separate request thread if I get too many responses for this.

 

[NickClapper]

But I think that perhaps you're highlighting your real problem.

TLC and Discovery Channel might well be 40% stock footage and there might well be Academy Award winning films that are heavy in their use of stock footage. But these aren't the people who donate to Kickstarter.

If you want to market the concept directly to channels that might be interested then that's one thing but in putting this on Kickstarter you're serving a very different type of customer. Firstly it's primarily individuals rather than organisations, secondly (in the film world) it tends to be people working on independent films rather than TV or studio releases and finally you've got all the people to whom the term 'stock footage' means next to nothing.

Obviously you're passionate about the application of stock footage I just think you need to be aware that, as Rik says, the Kickstarter audience is not exactly primed to this sort of project. I still think you can do it but you need to be more explicit about 'why' an independent filmmaking ought to invest in you. Personally even though I've given you a little money I won't be downloading any clips when the site is up. I just don't really have any great need for stock footage and the fact that it's 5k, whilst attractive to some, means that I know it's beyond my means to edit. Also unless people are already shooting at that sort of resolution there's going to be discrepancies in terms of quality and that might narrow down your market a little bit.

 

[Nate North]

There are a lot of places to acquire stock footage, but these companies are not netting millions of dollars on stock footage alone. Places like Getty are absolutely making more money on Stock PHOTOS...

And, honestly, that's a sector you definitely cannot compete in.

I'm saying this from experience.

One thing you didn't do in the text area is break down what exactly the money is going toward. You sort of gloss over it in the video, but where is 30K going exactly?

That may help you out.

Agreed on the stock photos. Mount Everest is nothing compared to scaling the stock photo world. You can spend 30k just taking photos, then get a check for $16 at the end of the year.

I put an abridged breakdown in the FAQ section, but I've gotten this comment several times, so maybe I'll move it into the main text. Thanks for the tip.

There is a company that did almost exactly what I'm doing, I bought their library, and I see clips from it almost daily in others work. And from what I'm seeing, its one of the most successful stock collections worldwide.

The only difference really between my collection and theirs is that mine has 300 more clips, is filmed with a better camera, and you can buy the clips individually instead of having to buy all 700 at once.

So I'm sure it's marketable, I've seen it done many times. You may be right, I may overestimate the size of the market for stock. But by this same rationale, how big is the market for any one low budget short film? Those get funded, and the eventual audience is way smaller than mine. Does the 5 minute short, "bob rides a canoe" really have a larger audience than a universal filmmaking tool, in common use?

 

[Kholi]

Agreed on the stock photos. Mount Everest is nothing compared to scaling the stock photo world. You can spend 30k just taking photos, then get a check for $16 at the end of the year.

Well, in the vast world that the internet is I've seen three different photos of my GF for three different kinds of ads on facebook banners. They were stock photos that a photog took of her just a year before they started showing up.

It's a bigger business, definitely.

So I'm sure it's marketable, I've seen it done many times. You may be right, I may overestimate the size of the market for stock.

It's marketable, but as a few of us have pointed out kickstarter and indie film forums may not be the place you want to really push your campaign.

But by this same rationale, how big is the market for any one low budget short film? Those get funded, and the eventual audience is way smaller than mine. Does the 5 minute short, "bob rides a canoe" really have a larger audience than a universal filmmaking tool, in common use?

By the way, that's exactly why short films, narrative, docs, etc get funded: they have a smaller and more concentrated audience, which means a higher average pledge. I kinda went over that already, I know, but maybe that's a bit more clear? I dunno!

You're not talking about people who want to watch movies, you're talking about people who want to create content... that producers are outweighed by consumers in this context. Far far outweigh.

5K or a cool camera won't be enough, man. If that were the case then I'd be on all sorts of top lists... I can walk around the corner, grab an Epic at no cost for as long as I'd like and do whatever with it.

There's no real value in it aside from wowing other filmmakers, and doesn't really legitimize anything, unfortunately.

A stronger angle will probably benefit your campaign, but at the end of the day it's yours!

 

[directorik]

Ok maybe I'm being defensive, sorry Rik

No need to apologize - you should be defending your project.

I think you misunderstood a little. I know that there is a lot of
stock footage out there and that we all are seeing stock footage
often. I’m thinking what you are doing is not as much a community
service as a business plan. You build a product and then sell that
product.

I understand that you will sell your product for less than anyone
else which is a great business plan. But is that really a service
to the community? A cheaper product better made? That’s called
good business in my opinion. You aren’t (in my opinion) helping
any filmmaker out more than the guy who rents cameras for less
than the guy down the street - or the company that sells gaffers
tape for $2 less than the competition. It’s great business - it is
not a community service.

Perhaps more people feel the way I do which is why people are not
donating to you.

What I’m seeing is that you are trying to get people to help you
fund your business. In many ways that isn’t what people who go to
these crowd funding sites are looking for - they want to help a
guy build a really cool box kite. The people helping fund a short
film are not helping start a business - they are helping someone
they know and like make a movie.

Is it really millions of people? Probably not, probably more like 1 million worldwide. But independent filmmakers in the US alone could fund this project 100x over.

Then you have an excellent business plan. It sounds like you will
have a great stock footage site that will be inexpensive, have
amazing quality and cover a large range of footage.


I don’t think you are doing anything wrong. But you may be targeting
the wrong people and using the wrong method.

Maybe (just maybe) treating this as a community service more than
a profitable business is turning people away. I hope I'm wrong and
you get fully funded.

 

[Nate North]

Well, in the vast world that the internet is I've seen three different photos of my GF for three different kinds of ads on facebook banners. They were stock photos that a photog took of her just a year before they started showing up.
It's a bigger business, definitely.
It's marketable, but as a few of us have pointed out kickstarter and indie film forums may not be the place you want to really push your campaign.

By the way, that's exactly why short films, narrative, docs, etc get funded: they have a smaller and more concentrated audience, which means a higher average pledge. I kinda went over that already, I know, but maybe that's a bit more clear? I dunno!

You're not talking about people who want to watch movies, you're talking about people who want to create content... that producers are outweighed by consumers in this context. Far far outweigh.

5K or a cool camera won't be enough, man. If that were the case then I'd be on all sorts of top lists... I can walk around the corner, grab an Epic at no cost for as long as I'd like and do whatever with it.

There's no real value in it aside from wowing other filmmakers, and doesn't really legitimize anything, unfortunately.

A stronger angle will probably benefit your campaign, but at the end of the day it's yours!

Ok, I understand I think about the producer/consumer ratio (though as a business person, that sounds insane to me. 5 salesmen donating their own money in the hope of pleasing one consumer?, where else do you see that)

Marketing wise, we were never planning to hit any top 10 lists on big stock pages.

We'll build our own site, and cater to our own customers. This really isn't supposed to turn into some huge thing. We just want to make a few good libraries and move on. The idea is to fulfill our rewards, and and anything past that is gravy. If money is rushing in, more libraries, if it's not, kickstarter means I don't have to worry about it.

5k footage and Raw footage do have strong advantages. For one thing, it looks better. For another, we can do extreme slow motion effects that lesser cameras just can't handle, lastly, the Epic footage is large and strong enough that you can use it to generate stock photos as well, giving enough room to crop several 1080p native pictures from a single frame.

So the camera is more than hype, but of course you know that, because I've seen you using the Red on your site.

I've heard your comments about the low $1 price, but there's nothing I can do about it now since you can't change rewards after a campaign starts.

As far as taking an entirely new marketing angle, I think my next choice is the old favorite, actual investors.

one of them will give me the whole 30k, maybe more. All I have to do is make the price 10x as high for everyone, and that will cover losses from accepting investment. See why I'm trying this way first?

@nick Sorry to hear you won't be using any footage, I was planning to give you the whole library for helping out so much. Remember, 100 of these 1000 clips are CGI backgrounds and title cards, so you could almost certainly use some of those for youtube, etc.

 

[Modern Day Myth Prod. LLC]

My advice is get a Plan B together if your campaign fails. See what your options are for taking out a loan, money from a retirement funds, stocks and bonds, or selling stuff off.

You won't take it as hard if you have a Plan B if your Plan A fails.

A friend of mine did a really good presentation with kickstarter that failed. She said her research indicates that kickstarter is really cut out for arthouse projects and not for films with mainstream ideas.

Mine is questionable and it failed. But, I had a Plan B ready and used my tax refund and a loan to get mine shot.

 

[Kholi]

5k footage and Raw footage do have strong advantages. For one thing, it looks better. For another, we can do extreme slow motion effects that lesser cameras just can't handle, lastly, the Epic footage is large and strong enough that you can use it to generate stock photos as well, giving enough room to crop several 1080p native pictures from a single frame.

I do know that it has strong advantages, for sure. What I'm trying to say, and it's probably not reading properly (sorry about that), is that it's not a strong enough selling point? Like, there's a reason why the serious agencies for creative content still get paid hundreds of thousands to produce.

It's not what they use, these people are paying for a skill, talent, and guaranteed quality.

If you were Tom Lowe (google him) and you were doing this, then you would have an edge and history to back your claims, the price would be the double down. You aren't, so you have to figure something else out.

Does that make sense?

So the camera is more than hype, but of course you know that, because I've seen you using the Red on your site.

You are right, it is more than hype. I tend not to pitch on gear, though. Although I used to, that was before I actually gathered the skill to where people would trust me with anything in my hands. Going forward, I won't have to say "And we shoot RED MX"... I'll say "And we'll turn it around for you ready to broadcast."

That said, my preference is RED MX and I don't like to shoot anything less than. I feel you on the camera, because next feature out I'm more than likely shooting Epic since I can't afford a larger truck. There are major benefits.

one of them will give me the whole 30k, maybe more. All I have to do is make the price 10x as high for everyone, and that will cover losses from accepting investment. See why I'm trying this way first?

I can see why you may not want to take a 30K that's waiting for you. If I were sure about my plan, personally, I would just take the 30K. It sounds like (what Rik said) you're trying to start a business. That's how you do it. If I planned to use 30K to buy gear then I'd be okay with grinding to get it paid off.

I still think you have a shot at raising your goal, so everything I'm saying is just to try and help a fellow community member get there. Don't take it negatively, please.

Apologies if it came off that way.

 

[NickClapper]

@nick Sorry to hear you won't be using any footage, I was planning to give you the whole library for helping out so much. Remember, 100 of these 1000 clips are CGI backgrounds and title cards, so you could almost certainly use some of those for youtube, etc.

That's very kind of you! It's not that I don't like the footage or think it's a good idea, I just don't have a use for it. I may occasionally make short films but, come October, my primary focus has to switch back to studying and most of my spare time will go into my website.

I'm sure there are people who will be able to use it- just not people technophobic people like me