Reel Indie will only take 3% of the crowdfunding in order to keep the site running. We hope to eliminate this entirely further down the road.
That's quite fair.
They are business-oriented and that's completely understandable, BUT the result is that some filmmakers will get screwed and left without distribution. Reel Indie differs in that we ARE filmmakers and our primary drive is to support independent filmmakers. We are launching the platform that we always wanted to see, which is strictly for the filmmaker, how to support them, how to solve a multitude of problems in the process, etc. and NOT how we can profit from their work.
I'm not the kind of person who expects distributors to do their work for no return. In fact, I'm skeptical of anyone offering to do something without the quid-pro-quo (hence my question before). As a matter of fact, I prefer to have a symbiotic relationship where a distributor is looking to make as big a profit as they can, so long as it ALSO means that my profit is also growing larger at the same time.
I'd like to see two models offered.
1). Full service. Charge a premium for this (say 30-50%) where you are responsible for driving financing, marketing, pre-sales, merchandising sales, post-sales to a production. This is similar to how a studio would do their business, but instead of financing it yourself, finance it through crowd funding and let the potential clients decide what gets funding. In other words, it'll encourage film makers to make what people want to see. This gives you the budget to be able to hire professionals to do the marketing and PR work that most filmmakers have no hope in achieving results.
2). Bare-Bones service. Charge 3-5% for usage of the infrastructure. There is no expectation that you will send clients to the production for financing or sales. For those filmmaking groups who want to maximize their potential upside, do all the work themselves and be responsible for all the results.
What I see is a lot of sites like this wanting to charge full service rates and provide bare bones materials. I, and I'm sure many others, don't have any interest in being charged studio rates for back yard service. I'm glad to see you're not going down that path.
By being exclusive to independent films and filmmakers, we will be able to cultivate a community of like-minded individuals who support indie film. With other crowdfunding platforms there are hundreds of different products and projects all trying to compete for attention. But by being purely focused on independent films then we can provide a place for investors only interested in film.
In my opinion, you need to find a way to make independent films profitable. Decrease the down side and mitigate losses. Put some sort of system in place that forces this to happen to increase the chance of success, otherwise, you run into the likely position where the first bunch of film makers that take advantage of your investors burn them and make steaming piles of dog**** ruining your entire platform you've spent time and money building.
I can tell you, the majority of film makers out there are more than happy to take the gold (money) you've organized and turn it into lead to get themselves a payday without a care in the world regarding a return for your investors.
How are you going to protect the investors and the customers? They've the two most precious resources in your entire venture.
The problem with all this thinking is it moves you closer to how the studio system already works, which by my guess, exactly what you wanted to avoid in the first place.
Who said film distribution would be easy, right?
