Models for funding documentaries

January 21, 2014
posted by sheric

During the 2013 Sheffield Doc Festival, an international panel of documentary producers spoke about the different methods they use to find funding for their work. While 3 of the panelists were fortunate enough to come from countries that provide tax payer funded initiatives for filmmakers, producer Julie Goldman of Motto Pictures was the representative from the US. We do have some government funded programs for documentaries, but only for films that meet a certain criteria (ie, largely social good topics). I summarized some of the points Goldman brought up during the panel, a video of which has been posted on Youtube and runs about an hour and a half (link below if you have time to watch all of it).

-Goldman’s company, Motto Pictures, has helped produce a wide range of award winning documentaries such as A Place at the Table, Buck, Ai WeiWei: Never Sorry and God Loves Uganda. The company was founded in 2009.

-Every film has a different funding model; from cobbling together multiple grants over years to commissions from major broadcasters. Buck was already fully financed from private investors when it came to the company. This is a rare occurrence.

-One of her biggest pieces of advice is about striking at the right funding moment. You have to be ready, agile and go for opportunities when they open up. If there is suddenly a new channel buying documentaries for their new programming initiative, you have to be there from day one because in a short time, they could be out of business, but you will have gotten some presale money at least. Be on the lookout for new funds opening up all the time.

documentaries

-The projects she spoke most about were God Loves Uganda and Buck. God Loves Uganda was a labor of love project which took 3 years to piece together full financing. First, they applied and received money from Sundance Documentary Fund, Tribeca Gucci Documentary Fund, Tribeca All Access, Open Society (George Soros), tons of little bits of money,  but still had a huge gap in the budget. They proceeded production in stages with the small tranches of money and everyone was deferring and thinking they were never going to get paid. Finally, the project received money from ITVS Open Call, but it was complicated. ITVS is the funding body for independent films for public television in the US and they go to different strands such as POV and Independent Lens. They can become an equity investor and license the TV rights for 4 years. Because they are funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, there are some things they are intransigent about and others where you can find flexibility. They take an equity position in the project and they have that going forward from any means of income the film has, not money from festival prizes, but any sales the film gets. While the God Loves Uganda made it through to the final round of the vetting process, they didn’t end up getting the money at first. But at that time, one of the strands, Independent Lens, had discretionary funding for projects they were interested in and they gave some funding. It was still an ITVS project, but Independent Lens had an option for it, a first look. But Goldman thinks now that funding isn’t available anymore. Again, look for those funding moments and be ready to strike. The final funding piece  came from the Ford Foundation.  They fund projects and you do not have to be a US citizen to apply for them. They have an incredibly helpful website and an initiative called Just Films which funds $10mil for films of a social justice nature each year for the next 5 years. It may or may not be renewed in future.

-In all grant inquiry letters, don’t just explain how your film fits into a broad funding initiative. If it is a big organization, chances are they have branches that are concerned with specific issues and if your film touches on more than one of those (say, LGBT AND freedom of expression or minority rights), it helps the organization fulfill more than one mission and is more likely to receive funding because those divisions can work together and often share the funding resources. It could even result in getting more money.

-God Loves Uganda was an example of the miserable-while-you’re-doing-it-but-happy-in-the-end funding model. The model for Buck was much happier. The film centers around Buck Brannaman who is the original horse whisperer. He runs well regarded training sessions and he is a really popular and loved figure in the horse owning world.  People wanted to give money to have this film made about him when the director decided she was going to do it so the film was funded by all private money by the time it came to Motto Pictures. Buck was released theatrically in the US in 2011 with revenue of over $4 million, which is a big hit for a documentary. But the exhibitors took 65% of that. Out of the 35% that goes back to the distributor, IFC Films, they took 25% out of that plus their costs for marketing and prints. And then the sales agent takes their cut. Basically, the film was in the red for a long time even though over 200,000 DVDs were sold. While DVDs rarely sell in this volume, the audience for the film was older and it was a really good DVD audience. It is only now (2013) that money is starting to come in to the producer.

-However, director Cindy Meehl had another source of revenue planned and it is VERY important to consider this. She planned these 3 camera shoots on beautiful Montana ranches of the horse clinics Brannaman holds annually to be used as footage in the film. It was very professionally captured footage. She then released extra footage as a 7 part DVD (at $30 a pop) for people who can’t go to the clinics or want an introduction before they go. Those DVDs that she produced are selling like CRAZY and she is making a lot of money on them. It was very smart and her investors are getting their money back more quickly that way. If you have a subject matter that could have ancillary value to a lucrative niche market, it is very clever to plan for monetizing it outside of the feature film during development and while in production.  Said Goldman, “At the time, we shrugged and thought, whatever. We weren’t horse people so we didn’t understand or have faith in it. She had total faith in it and she was right.”

-The final model, if you’re lucky enough to win it, is commissioning. A big entity like HBO or Participant Media will pay you a fee to make a film for them and they own the film.  You will never see another penny other than your fee and you had better not go over budget. This model is almost exclusively for the well established documentary filmmaker.

-The panel only briefly touched on a new model, crowdfunding. Only the producers from Canada and the US had any experience with it and felt that the amount of work involved in running a campaign is grossly underestimated. But the point was raised that funding and distribution are moving from the institutional to the social and increasingly audiences are taking their recommendations from friends and those they trust.  It stands to reason they will also pay, either to create or to see films that are made by filmmakers they like and trust. For now, crowdfunding of documentary is mainly working for those who don’t have big production budgets, but do have either name recognition or issue recognition to tap into an existing audience.

Other funding bodies that documentary makers should be aware of include:

Influence Film Foundation

Cinereach

Hartley Film Foundation

Worldview

 

For the full Sheffield DocFest panel including explanations from producers from Canada, UK and Netherlands, watch the video

YouTube Preview Image

 

 

 

 

 

 

Audience strategy from the start

March 20, 2011
posted by sheric

While attending SXSW conference this year, I met Patricia Aufderheide who introduced me to the Center for Social Media at the School of Communication at American University in Washington, DC.  I encourage you to check out what they are doing. A post on their blog I was reading today was a highlight of their recent Making Your Media Matter Conference. There is a video accompaniment that lasts about an hour and twenty minutes which covers social impact documentary films Not in Our Town, The Lioness and a film by Conscious Youth Media Crew called Why I Ride: Low and Slow. The CYMC is based in San Francisco and “provides the technology and training necessary for inner city youth to create quality media that represents their experiences, stimulates meaningful dialogue, and promotes social change.” The topic being discussed on the panel was building audience engagement and outreach strategies into the filmmaking process from the start in order to facilitate broader dialogues, reach wider audiences, and create distribution partnerships to be utilized during release.  Main takeaway being this must be decided from the start, not as an afterthought.

All three women (unusual for most film panels) talked about the different ways they went about forming partnerships which they considered key in reaching their target audience. I will synopsize the main points in case you don’t have time to watch the whole video:

-Their editorial decisions were influenced by the strategies. They structured the narrative so that it would be inviting to the multiple audiences they were trying to reach.  In the Lioness example, the filmmakers established early on that the film would not be a biased, agenda film commenting on the Iraq War, but on the women who served in combat which was against policy at the start of the war. To interject political bias would mean alienating certain segments of the audience and limiting its potential appeal. They knew at the start that their super core audience would be active military, military families, veterans, but by framing the film as a gender equality film, they were able to reach beyond the military audience to women’s groups in general (Women in Law, NOW). Had they not decided on a clear audience strategy for the film at the beginning, they may not have made the story editing decisions that would effectively enable them to attract the interest of these larger groups.

-In forming early partnerships with the Center for Women Veterans, Disabled American Veterans and ITVS, they were able to find subjects to interview for the film AND they were able to arrange screenings of the film through those organizations, both at the national and at the local level. Each of these organizations has state branches and without the support of the national group, the filmmakers would not have been able to easily reach the local representatives. Through ITVS, they were able to reach the Senate Armed Services Committee and do a screening on Capitol Hill.

-Lioness Director Megan McLagan also stressed the importance of face to face meetings with leaders and organizations. She brought along some of the female subjects to conferences and summits to speak to the representatives and bring a personal connection to the film’s story. While early connections were made via email or phone calls, it was the in person meetings that made an impact. Utilizing online tools is great, but we must not forget the profound impact of a face to face meeting to really connect with audience.

-Lioness’ partners became their distribution partners as well. The filmmakers sold DVDs and community screening licenses off of their site (licenses ran $195) and those partner organizations were some of their biggest customers. The organizations’ cause was helped by screening the film to their own community and the filmmakers were able to have a revenue stream for their work. The filmmakers also chopped up the film into modules to work with a pilot program in North Carolina to train primary care physicians on how to treat women returning from the Iraq War. They are now working on a structure that will take this program to other states and benefit not only the organization running the training but the filmmakers also. A win win all around.

-McLagan says you must embed yourself within the major organizations that service your target audience and to embed successfully you must establish trust and credibility with them. If you are seen as only exploitive, it won’t work. This work is time consuming and cannot be left until release. She also stressed being flexible in taking up new opportunities as they present themselves. A few times she had to go back to her funders to ask for money to go to speaking engagements that popped up. These were not originally planned in the budget and luckily her funders were able to accommodate. There will always be unforeseen opportunities that could pay really big audience and financial dividends so budget for these kinds of contingencies.

-Debra Koffler, who runs CYMC, said that the core of their audience building effort came from forming partnerships with local community leaders and from casting local talent whenever possible. Accessing a strong community audience first is enabling the film to move wider from there.

-As the script was in development (Why I Ride:Low and Slow is not a documentary, but a narrative feature), the filmmakers went into the community and interviewed many locals to find out what were their experiences, what would they respond to in characters of the film and then weaved those elements into the storyline and into the characters’ back stories. In doing this research work, they built up a strong base of local community support and attention to what they were making.

It cannot be emphasized enough that the task of audience building must start at the beginning of the filmmaking process. This is especially relevant to documentaries but it can also be relevant for narrative films. Filmmakers need to have a clear idea of who they are trying to reach with their stories and research where to find them and how to communicate with them effectively. This work will not go to waste when it comes time to distribute whether you are planning to sell the film to a distributor or sell it yourself.