Are distributors interested in short films?

[Landon D. Parks]

You'll likely make a lot more money on shorts off Hulu than you will off Youtube. I would say upload your short to kinonation and have it play on Hulu. Last I checked, Hulu split 60/40 with filmmakers and their average CPM was nearly $30 (before they take 40%), compared to a meager $1-$2 you'll get from Youtube. Youtube is fine for cat videos and viral things, but don't expect much from it in terms of money.

 

Hulu use to accept short films - I take it they still do.

 

If you're looking for nothing but eyes and not money, Youtube might well be a better option. In either case, you'll need to drive traffic to either one. Many people think Youtube is easier to get views on because its so accessible and has so many visitors. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unless you go viral, you will not be found organically through Youtube or Hulu - though at least with Hulu you're not competing with cat videos...

Edited April 9, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Field]

 

If you're looking for nothing but eyes and not money, Youtube might well be a better option. In either case, you'll need to drive traffic to either one. Many people think Youtube is easier to get views on because its so accessible and has so many visitors. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Lol have you tried Vimeo or Dailymotion? Youtube is actually very effective if you know how to engage quickly.

[Landon D. Parks]

 

 

 

Lol have you tried Vimeo or Dailymotion? Youtube is actually very effective if you know how to engage quickly.

 

 

Vimeo and Daily motion are nothing more than Youtube with less visitors to begin with. None of these user-upload video portals offer any financial incentives whatsoever. Why? Advertisers don't pay good money for placements. On Hulu, advertisers know the market who is watching the ads are people who pay for a service each month, and know that their ads are being displayed on curated content.

 

So no I have not tried Vimeo or Dailymotion, and never would for anything I deemed worthy of monetizing. Over the years I have uploaded tons of stuff to Youtube on several different personal channels.... All totaled over the years all my stuff might have gotten 50,000 views, and I have made roughly $20 from all of it. That was even with prime keyword placements.

 

Like I said, Youtube may be okay if your goal is simply to drive traffic to your video - because of it's easy of access. However, Hulu is still a better monetization option, at least in my opinion.

 

No matter which portal you use, you'll need to drive your own traffic to it - at least until other start helping you to do so. I'd much rather drive them to Hulu, where such an endeavor might pay off a little better.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Guest]

I would love to meet the filmmaker that pays all his bills as a short filmmaker. Maintains a house, a car, maybe has kids, and health insurance?

 

Seriously, where is this person?

 

They don't exist FYI.

 

R,

[Tyler Purcell]

I would love to meet the filmmaker that pays all his bills as a short filmmaker. Maintains a house, a car, maybe has kids, and health insurance?

Well, there are only an extremely myopic group of people who make money off their "art" anyway. Most people who work in the film/television industry are skilled tradesmen, who are paid to do a job. They have no financial or personal stake in the project. They are hired to do a job and when they're done, they move onto the next job.

 

So it really doesn't matter if it's a short film, documentary, narrative or feature, "artists" trying to survive only off their "art" are always going to struggle.

 

At the same time, there are plenty of people making short-subject content on youtube who have made millions.

[Carl Looper]

I would love to meet the filmmaker that pays all his bills as a short filmmaker. Maintains a house, a car, maybe has kids, and health insurance?

 

Seriously, where is this person?

 

They don't exist FYI.

 

R,

 

 

The very fact that short films exist (be they shot on film or video) means money (or equivalent) has exchanged hands somewhere during the means of production. The economy around short films is not the same as the economy around feature films but it is an economy. Its just a completely different one.

 

We hold regular screenings of short films (shot on film and projected on a film projector) with quite a reasonable audience. We can't do this without paying our bills. So the very fact that we can do this, and continue to do this, means we have payed our bills. Some of us even have a house, cars, kids and health insurance. I certainly have the last three.

 

How those bills are paid are not necessarily a direct function of the films themselves, but one thing is for sure - without the way we do fund these films, (and we don't have any government assistance whatsoever), the films we make, and the screenings we hold, would not exist.

 

C

[Max Field]

 

I would love to meet the filmmaker that pays all his bills as a short filmmaker. Maintains a house, a car, maybe has kids, and health insurance?

 

Seriously, where is this person?

 

They don't exist FYI.

 

R,

Depends on what you consider a "film". Youtube guys can make millions of views plus a middle class living uploading their shorts. Granted, the standard for screenwriting and direction is not very high and the technique would be unimpressive to people on pro-am specialist forums like these, but they do exist. Look up like FreddieW or someone like that.

 

Again, standard is not high and the writing is rarely impressive.

[Landon D. Parks]

The type of video that makes money on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ctP9cLRbnE

 

Sure there are exception to the rule - don't count on being one. Of course, you can make a mint if you can get your cat to jump through a hoop of fire or your baby to gaggle some cute phrase. I'd love to know of an effective short film that has done well on Youtube. I don't mean the type of episodic content that is rampant on Youtube either, that is not really a short film more than it is internet television show.

 

There was the Born of Hope thing that was a nonprofit venture related to Lord of the Rings. Thing got like 10 million views... But then again it was not monetized, so...

Edited April 10, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Field]

 

 

Sure there are exception to the rule - don't count on being one. Of course, you can make a mint if you can get your cat to jump through a hoop of fire or your baby to gaggle some cute phrase. I'd love to know of an effective short film that has done well on Youtube. I don't mean the type of episodic content that is rampant on Youtube either, that is not really a short film more than it is internet television show.

 

That deals in absolutes a little too much. If someone understands the market, has a moderate amount of talent, and busts their ass they can start picking up a 5 digit following easily. You may become a slave to a niche, but you will be making a nice amount of money.

 

I've been at the Youtube end of things for about 3 years and have worked on/created multiple videos that hit over a million hits. Your first "hit videos" will have to be parodies/critiques of IP that already has a big name, but after a while the gate opens up for creative efforts that don't involve other brands.

 

It's understandable why someone wouldn't want to put the work into Youtube, cause once you're on the top you still aren't really famous or well respected. However to imply it is completely based on luck is misrepresenting the grind some of these guys go through. Only SOME of these guys lol.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Landon D. Parks]

 

 

That deals in absolutes a little too much. If someone understands the market, has a moderate amount of talent, and busts their ass they can start picking up a 5 digit following easily. You may become a slave to a niche, but you will be making a nice amount of money.

 

I've been at the Youtube end of things for about 3 years and have worked on/created multiple videos that hit over a million hits. Your first "hit videos" will have to be parodies/critiques of IP that already has a big name, but after a while the gate opens up for creative efforts that don't involve other brands.

 

It's understandable why someone wouldn't want to put the work into Youtube, cause once you're on the top you still aren't really famous or well respected. However to imply it is completely based on luck is misrepresenting the grind some of these guys go through. Only SOME of these guys lol.

 

 

Don't get me wrong: I have no doubt one can build a YouTube audience... My question is, "with what?". I've rarely seen much success come from channels showing dramatic or comedic or genre narrative short films. Some have a few thousand views, but I've not ran across any narrative shorts that have received a lot of views, short of the LotR project I mentioned above - and it got there because it was a fan film from one of the highest rated properties ever made. Unless you're making the next LotR or Harry Potter fan film, I doubt you'll find such instant success.

 

Now if you're into episodic content - you CAN build up an audience pretty fast that way. Though I'd still say for narrative episodic content, you're better of pitching it on a site that regularly deals with narrative works rather than cat videos. I still say shot for a Hulu Original, and if that fails, see if they'll go Hulu Exclusive. If that fails, use an agrigator to get it on Hulu as a standard property. Either way, the CPM on Hulu is tons better than Youtube.

 

Assuming of course you have a Hulu-quality project. Since they do curate, they won't accept everything you give them. Which is good IMHO.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Field]

 

 

Don't get me wrong: I have no doubt one can build a YouTube audience... My question is, "with what?". I've rarely seen much success come from channels showing dramatic or comedic or genre narrative short films. Some have a few thousand views, but I've not ran across any narrative shorts that have received a lot of views, short of the LotR project I mentioned above - and it got there because it was a fan film from one of the highest rated properties ever made. Unless you're making the next LotR or Harry Potter fan film, I doubt you'll find such instant success.

 

Now if you're into episodic content - you CAN build up an audience pretty fast that way. Though I'd still say for narrative episodic content, you're better of pitching it on a site that regularly deals with narrative works rather than cat videos.

I would say to look to animation if you're wondering how to build an audience with screenplays falling closer to the festival flavor. Julian Smith comes to mind as a guy who's done well for himself on Youtube with live action.

 

With Youtube, most of the stuff you do has to be either comedic or musical. I had the chops for joke writing so it worked well for me. Grabbing attention early is another key element, no one will sit a minute for a payoff if there isn't other things along the way leading up to it. I don't mind it that much, but sometimes it'd be nice to play with other gears of speed.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Guest]

At the same time, there are plenty of people making short-subject content on youtube who have made millions.

 

I'd like to see an example of someone making narrative short films, showing them on Youtube, and making a living.

 

R,

[Carl Looper]

Yes, just because one person makes a fortune on a poker machine doesn't mean everyone can, otherwise the poker machine business would be out of business.

 

Those who make a fortune in social media, just like those who make a fortune on a poker machine, are the exception - not the rule.

 

And the exception in both cases is a function of statistics. Not the filmmaker or poker machine player.

 

But it's in the interest of poker machine manufacturers, as much as the social media provider, to maintain the myth that you are the one who can make a fortune. And they do that by giving a fortune to one out of x number of people (and parading that as if that could be you), be it based on the statistics built into a poker machine, or the statistics that otherwise emerge in social interactions.

 

How do you beat the casino? Don't play. Or build a casino and perpetrate the same ugly myths.

 

C

Edited April 10, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Max Field]

 

 

I'd like to see an example of someone making narrative short films, showing them on Youtube, and making a living.

 

R,

I can show you some guys pushing poor plots, but narratives nonetheless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6znipZ9dK9A

Edited April 10, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Guest]

 

 

I can show you some guys pushing poor plots, but narratives nonetheless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6znipZ9dK9A

 

 

And the making a living part?????????????

 

R,

[Max Field]

 

 

And the making a living part?????????????

 

R,

Check the channel check the hits???????????????????????????????????????????????????--sorry my key got stuck from all the ringpop residue on my fingers.

The FilmRiot guys get their living off of monetization and sponsorships, I wouldn't rule out that they get other commissions on the side, but many of those opportunities were made possible by their following on Youtube. Again, FreddieW is another prime example of this.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Macks Fiiod

[Carl Looper]

Yes, I agree with Mr Boddington. You can't make a living out of short films - or at least not your own short films. Apart from exceptions and examples of course - but they are easy to find when you've got the entire world of counter-examples at your finger tips - for you are bound to find exceptions. but as the saying go: the exceptions prove the rule.

 

Its worth repeating: the exceptions prove the rule.

 

This is statistics.

 

Someone else can make a living out of your short films (amongst others) but you can't make a living out of it.

 

To make a living, and make your short films, you have to play both roles. Making a living and making your short films. And they need not be unrelated. My situation is like this. There is some overlap and inter-dependencies. In this sense one can indirectly make a living out of short films - but it's not just from the films. It's how you might exploit them in the context of more directly funded work. Or not as the case may be.

 

You could also earn a living working on other people's short films. And that's Tyler's quite reasonable point. Perhaps easier to do in a large economy like the US. Here in Australia it's a lot more limited, but would be the same basic equation.

 

C

Edited April 10, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Landon D. Parks]

It's also important to note that the likes of Ryan Connolly probably makes most of his money from Film Riot, and not any short films he makes. The Fine Bros. also have a large following and likely make a living at it - but again, their kids react is more akin to a reality TV show than narrative short. When you produce 1 or 2 new videos a day each get millions of views, one can expect to make a lot of money.

 

Connolly's 'Portal Combat' was likely also helped to be funded by HitFilm, the company that makes the software behind much of the FX in the film. On top of that, 450,000 views only equates to 450 CPM's. Most YouTube partners can expect to earn about $1 CPM after the YouTube split... So Connolly probably make a whopping $450 from that short film. HitFilm also helped to push that Portal Combat movie - it's all over their Facebook, YouTube, and Website as well.

 

Not saying YouTube is not a way get yourself known or even make money, but I don't think either will happen when dealing in narrative short films - and certainly not both. Episodic content or even narrative web series can get you there, but it'll require a lot of work - and also producing something that looks stellar on a low enough budget to make it payoff until the big views start coming in.

 

To make money off YouTube, I would never invest more than $5,000 in production costs for an entire season of web series, and would never spend more than about $500 total an episode. You can realistically make that back eventually... Anything more is pushing it.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Max Field]

 

but it'll require a lot of work

And that right there is the biggest factor holding people back from accomplishing anything Youtube or not. Plan your ideas around your budget, not the other way around. Core talent will always shine through to some extent if you have it.

[Guest]

The idea that you're going to have any sort of a lifestyle for 10+ years working full-time, 52 weeks a year, as a short filmmaker is just plain ridiculous.

 

R,

[Max Field]

 

The idea that you're going to have any sort of a lifestyle for 10+ years working full-time, 52 weeks a year, as a short filmmaker is just plain ridiculous.

 

R,

Depends on your definition of a short. Mine is a video that had a writing, recording, and editing process, what's yours?

[Guest]

 

 

Depends on your definition of a short. Mine is a video that had a writing, recording, and editing process, what's yours?

 

 

The same as yours.

 

R,

[Max Field]

 

 

The same as yours.

 

R,

Just in the confines of the definition we have both agreed on, thousands of people are doing that very thing on Youtube and making 5-6 figures (sometimes 7) or a "living". "Thousands" is still the minority, but telling someone it is impossible may not be the best route. "Hard" would be a better descriptor in this situation.

 

I could get on a Skype call with you and break down how people rise to cash flow on Youtube in an hour. Not hit sensation cat videos, actual content. Content that neither of us would love, but still content that matches our criteria of a short.

[Guest]

Yeah sorry, I don't buy that.

 

R,

[Phil Rhodes]

Of course you can make a living out of short films: lots of people on YouTube do it all the time.

 

Now, they're mainly making, arguably, short documentaries, quite often of themselves yammering into a camera, and I suspect it's very difficult to pay the rent on anything of much higher value, but I'm pretty sure people have made dramatic web series - at various levels of sophistication - based on things like kickstarter funds.

 

There is an unpleasant aftertaste to this if we notice that the people who are most successful tend to be the best-looking and most personable, not necessarily the most able, and that's kind of a problem. Most crowdfunding sites have long since become a place for the already-famous to become even more famous, which in my view isn't really the ideal situation, but there's nothing to be done about it.

 

Personally, though, I find this to be overall a positive development. The ability of people to make more specifically-targeted material that's of interest to really quite narrowly-defined groups of people makes for more interesting content for everyone, at least if you're in at least one group whose interests are being catered for, and most people probably are by now.

 

I wish that this new approach was able to fund better-looking material, as there's often no room for worthwhile camerawork at any level, but I find it hard to object in totalis.

 

Not, I hasten to add, that anyone here is likely to be able to raise a worthwhile production budget from kickstarter, because they'd already have to be a youtube star with half a million subscribers.

 

P