$100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter… And 8,000 Films Made

from the but-the-industry-is-dying dept

Less than a year after being declared the darling of Sundance — especially for not having “the arrogance of a studio” — Kickstarter has announced that over $100 million has been pledged to indie film via its platform (which, of course, is hardly the only crowdfunding platform that filmmakers use, though it is the most popular). There are some caveats, of course. This is over Kickstarter’s lifetime (since April 2009), but the numbers have been growing rapidly. $60 million of those pledges came in 2012. Also, that’s pledges, not actual money given, since only projects that hit their target get the money. The actual total collected is $85.7 million — which means that’ll get over $100 million pretty quickly.

And, yes, the “but what about my $100 million movie” crowd will scoff and argue that this number is so “small.” But, two points there: first, this number is growing very, very, very fast. And if you can’t understand how trends explode, then you’re going to be in trouble soon. Second — and this is the more important point — those funds helped create 8,000 films. For those who have been arguing about culture and how we’re going to lose the ability to make movies… this suggests something amazing and important is happening which goes against all those gloom and doom predictions. By way of comparison, the UN, which keeps track of stats on film production, claimed that in 2009, 7,233 films were made. Worldwide.

Also, some will inevitably suggest that these aren’t “real” films and don’t “count” or aren’t important. But, of course, the data shows that it’s creating a nice long tail of film production, and that includes some very “real” films no matter how you measure. According to the Kickstarter post:

  • At least 86 Kickstarter-funded films have been released theatrically, screening in more than 1,500 North American theaters according to Rentrak. Another 14 films have theatrical premieres slated for 2013.
  • According to Rotten Tomatoes, three of the 20 best-reviewed films of 2012 are Kickstarter-funded (The Waiting Room, Brooklyn Castle, and Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry). Another Kickstarter-funded film, Pariah, was among the best-reviewed of 2011.
  • Two films have been nominated for Oscars in the past two years: Sun Come Up and Incident in New Baghdad. A third, Barber of Birmingham, launched a project after being Oscar-nominated. Three documentary features and two documentary shorts are currently shortlisted for Oscar nominations in 2013: The Waiting Room, Detropia, Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry, Inocente, and Kings Point.
  • Kickstarter-funded films comprised 10% of Sundance’s slate in 2012 and 2013. In total, 49 Kickstarter-funded films have been official selections at the prestigious festival.
  • Kickstarter-funded films comprised 10% of the 2012 slates at the SXSW Film Festival and Tribeca Film Festival. In total, 57 Kickstarter-funded films have premiered at SXSW and 21 at Tribeca.
  • At least 16 Kickstarter-funded films have been picked up for national broadcast through HBO, PBS, Showtime, and other networks.
  • Kickstarter-funded films have won at least 21 awards at the Sundance, SXSW, Tribeca, Cannes, and Berlinale festivals.
  • Eight Kickstarter-funded films are nominated for Independent Spirit Awards this year.

That seems like a pretty good track record that any movie studio would be proud of… And, to think: this trend is just beginning.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: kickstarter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “$100 Million Pledged To Indie Film On Kickstarter… And 8,000 Films Made”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Jeff (profile) says:

Perhaps this will break the stranglehold that the majors have on filmmaking. Filmmakers will still have to pitch their ideas – but instead of pitching them to crusty, non-thinking, I-want-a-hundred-million-dollar-blockbuster studio exec, they can pitch their idea to like minded individuals. If enough folks participate in this business model, it will force the major studios to reform their ‘accounting’ practices in a way that gov’t regulations never could (or will).

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Don't think this is the end of Hollywood

If the MPAA studios actually feel threatened by this, they will quickly find a way to assimilate it and control it the way they have all other forms of independent cinema in this country.

For starters, they could simply buy Kickstarter. Or they could create their own crowdfunding site that gives a better deal than Kickstarter, such as offering distribution of any funded films (which they would control).

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Don't think this is the end of Hollywood

If the first happens, I’d give it a month, tops before a replacement showed up. And the second would hardly qualify as a ‘better deal’, given all the strings that would be attached if they were running such a site, with the filmmakers giving up control over distribution being one of the more minor problems such a thing would involve.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Don't think this is the end of Hollywood

Generally if you have a distribution deal BEFORE you make your movie, you’ve also got funding for the movie.

Most of these Kickstarter filmmakers do not have distribution deals, and most of those films never get distributed except through youtube (usually shorts). The reason they’re using Kickstarter is because there is no way to make money with the finished product. Shorts don’t make money.

Yes, they’d gladly do a deal where there’s any promise of distribution, esp. one backed by a major studio.

Chris Maresca (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Don't think this is the end of Hollywood

I think that the idea that shorts don’t make money is just old-school thinking.

There are a non-trivial number of people making a good living on YouTube producing content, enough so that there is at least one company built around providing services to those very people and that YouTube has just opened a large production studio in el Segundo. One music group that I kinda know lives off YouTube and employs seven people for production et. al work.

Granted, a lot of YouTube content is not ‘shorts’, but it does prove that a distributor-less model + semi-popular content is profitable. If you add subsidized production costs (aka Kickstarter), how much do you need to make on YouTube to be ‘profitable’? If you are a small group, $100k would be pretty good – an amount which would be a waste of time for most distributors.

Never mind that with production costs going down all the time, tools & hardware getting easier/cheaper and a global stage (‘profitable’ bar is lower in a lot of low-cost places), ‘success’ is getting closer for a lot of people.

jupiterkansas (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Don't think this is the end of Hollywood

It’s true if you’re going to produce a series or music videos or anything that drives steady, reliable traffic, you can generate some income.

For the single indie feature film and especially the single short film or documentary project, there aren’t a lot of options that will make money. Kickstarter is great for that.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Don't think this is the end of Hollywood

“If the first happens, I’d give it a month, tops before a replacement showed up.”

They’re already out there (e.g. http://www.indiegogo.com/), and I have no doubt that other sites will appear that are more focussed in a particular niche or specifically target those left disillusioned by any pro-studio moves made.

Kickstarter isn’t unique, it just happens to be the biggest “name” in the emerging market.

Ninja (profile) says:

It doesn’t matter how mind boggling are the numbers, the amount of successful stories and so on. The MAFIAA will NOT recognize that there are other ways, other BUSINESS MODELS that it can pursue to build quality content. And above all they’ll not accept that piracy is not a problem. I download. A lot. And yet I contribute a lot with all sorts of projects via donations, crowdsourcing. But regardless they’ll treat me and millions like me as criminals and they will bend laws in their favor just because their pockets STILL can.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

But as the trend continues there is a chance that the MPAA will reach into their pocket to slip another envelope of cash across the table and come up empty.

It is taking far to long, but their chokehold is starting to loosen. They demanded more bad law and were told in a very loud voice by the public NO. They will keep trying, but these are just the death throws of a dinosaur.

anonymouse says:

Re: Re:

Now what would be very very interesting is if there was a dedicated movie site that allowed crowd-funding only for movies and provided not only a place to collect funding but also marketed and analyzed/reviewed the movies released, maybe having a top 20 of the best movies of the year voted for by the viewers, maybe even a few trophy’s going to the top movies/actors..LOL.. actually this could very easily and quickly result in a total dominance of the online marketplace by crowd-funded movies. Better move quickly Hollywood otherwise you will be a has been very very soon, and we are not talking in terms of more than a few years.

Hopefully Hollywood do not recognize this as something that is threatening them, they need to stay away and leave this up to the innovators, let the online business of movies be controlled by the indie movies.

Anonymous Coward says:

Newsflash for Masnick:

Filmmakers who use crowd-funding don’t want their work ripped off any more than your boogeyman Hollywood studios want theirs ripped off.

And if you’ve got evidence that the majority of the filmmakers using crowdfunding would prefer people rip it off rather than pay for the privilege of viewing, post it.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I’m pretty sure that over 1 billion iTunes sales in one year (and going up) kind of proves that it’s not piracy, Einstein.

Oh, and just so you know, only ALBUM sales are down.

The rest of the music industry is up.

The only reason that album sales are down is…

Because people are buying singles instead of entire albums.

Keep shooting your mouth off, it’s fun to debunk you.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Album Sales are not going down in?

Album sales are going down if you only judge via iTunes, but there’s a “dark market”, and I DON’T mean piracy. I mean, albums being sold at shows, albums being sold on bandcamp, etc.

Take me as an Artist. I only made about $3 over iTunes with my latest album The Aftermath. However, I made a killing* on my bandcamp site.

*”killing” in this context means $168 in sales of The Aftermath album alone?

Chris Maresca (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Piracy wins because it’s easier to consume vs paid for content.

Just look at the fight between XBMC & Hulu to understand what I mean – or try playing a DVD on out-of-the-box Linux sometime.

In both of those scenarios, the content industries have made it so difficult to play content that I actually download ripped versions of DVDs I own as they are significantly easier to play across devices.

As far as the music business goes, Apple saved your ass. Unfortunately for you, Apple also now owns your ass. That’s what you get for killing off every other online music service.

Maybe if you’d actually made it easy, convenient & cheap for people to buy digital music when they were screaming for it, you wouldn’t be in the world of hurt you are today. Same goes for all other content.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I think you got that a bit backwards, Champ.

It’s Hollywood that is claiming all the loses due to piracy (Save the Key Grip by hiring a $400,000/year Intellectual Property Enforcement VP!) and then turning around and showing record box office returns while at the same time claiming the same movies all where in the red, so they don’t have to pay residuals.

The circular logic begins and ends in Hollywood. The rest of us are just trying to make some sense of it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right you are sir Anon, because Hollywood is surely the most straight forward and honest industry in the US(and World). I mean, yeah, the questionable business practices, inflated salaries, and whatever other financial crimes that occur on the scene is realy just fantasy!

I mean yeah… It is not as if Pirate Mike has ever criticized hollywood for something else either ( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml )

Realy one would say going after pirates is the only thing they ever did wrong, or maybe even go one step forward and not even say that what they are doing is wrong at all?


I would say though that going after what the wealthy elite do wrong in terms of business would be a full time journalist job, that Mike only focus on one part of it is only a problem for the uninformed crowd like you, who don’t know how or where to find out about all the other crap they do wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

He DOES NOT whine about Hollywood going after pirates. What he CRITICIZES is their methods of doing so.

End run arounds on due process. Outright censorship/seizure of domains/websites based solely on ALLEGED acts of copyright infringement (many of which have been wrong). Shoddy methods of evidence gathering regarding IP addresses.

You know, things like that. That isn’t being a piracy apologist or whining about Hollywood. That’s looking at things and focusing on the bigger picture and rightly noting that just because one group does something that is illegal (pirates and copyright infringement) DOES NOT mean another group has the right to cut corners in their haste to stop the other group (Hollywood and the various entertainment industries). Nor does it mean they have the right to drastically change and/or create laws that affect the rest of us just for the sake of their profits. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

They DO NOT have the right to monitor what I do or do not do online. Not until such time as I have actually committed a crime.

They DO NOT have the right to seize entire websites where legitimate free speech is taking place just because one subsection may or may not have a link to a link to a link to a site where their is an infringing file.

So and so forth. The only loser here is you. You’d rather bitch and moan about piracy and do nothing to actually stop it that doesn’t focus on actually solving the problem of why it is happening in the first place. And “people just want free shit” is NOT the “why it is happening in the first place”. It is due to a lack of legitimate and legal methods for access to copyrighted material. Yes, there are some options. But there are all kinds of geographical, timely, DRM restrictions in place. Which is essentially the same as there being no option in the first place. Reducing piracy is beyond simple, unless you really want to force “gotchas” on people as is currently being done. Give the people what they want, in a timely manner and with no geographical restrictions and sans DRM in one convenient place and you’ll be astounded at how quickly the dollars will roll in.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Seriously, just stop with the bullshit about not having a legal way to buy. It’s 2013. Everyone is just rolling their eyes at you. You’re greedy and believe you can take without paying and get away with it. End of discussion.

Of course none of your FUD and hyperbole are true in regard to Hollywood, but if you replace some of it with Google, your rant might actually make some sense.

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Not to mention the RIAA has employees go to restaurants and threaten the owners with lawsuits if they play any sort of copyrighted music (save for the radio, I believe) in their establishment.

“All it takes is 2 notes and we’ll know.”

And, yes, you can find proof of that online easily enough if you look.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

As you said, we live in 2013.

Mobile Internet access is ubiquitous. The “cloud” is no longer just a vague marketing concept. Internet speeds are going through the roof (we can get up to 250Mbps here).

In short, simple and instant access to all of my data is now possible and is becoming the norm.

And yet, if I ask that such a simple thing as immediate (even if paid) access to a piece of entertainment that has just become available, I am entitled?

We gave Hollywood the tools. We gave Hollywood the means to make this happen. They didn’t use them, choosing instead to stay stuck in the past. They brought their own troubles upon themselves.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

For clarification, when I say we, I mean software developers and network engineers (and a ton of other smart people).

Hollywood was handed a fuckton of technology and infrastructure without having to pay a cent for it. In fact, they actively try to sabotage all that development at every turn, such is their greed. Idiots…

silverscarcat says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“Seriously, just stop with the bullshit about not having a legal way to buy.”

Tell me where I can buy Battle Moon Wars in English then.

Go on, find me a website that sells Battle Moon Wars in English and I’ll believe you.

Or Magical Battle Arena.

Or how about finding me a way to legally buy Familiar of Zero Seasons 1-4 without paying 140 bucks each season. Also, they must have English dub.

What’s that? The license on Familiar of Zero has expired, so I can’t legally buy it anymore?

Well, would you LOOK AT THAT?!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

He just specifically told you that he would like to purchase something. He also specifically told you that he is unable to legally do so.

At that point, your argument fell apart. He wants to pay for a product and it is completely unavailable through any legal/legitimate methods.

He doesn’t need to post proof of anything. It’s 2013 and a shockingly large amount of content is not legally available through any of the available legal/legitimate options.

So, again, the point I raised earlier stands. Piracy is a direct result of a failure for the entertainment industries to provide a service/products people want. To address the issue of piracy all they need to do is give the people what they want. It’s 2013 after all. Technology has advanced to the point that it is easily available for the pirates to provide people what they want. Why can’t the entertainment industries?


Customer: Hey, I have some money I would like to give you for Product X. Is it available for me to purchase?

Entertainment Industry: Well, Product X is NOT being sold currently, nor will it ever be actually. But we have Product Y which is similar to Product X, except it is only available if you live in Country A and wait til Release Date B for use on Device C.

Customer: Uh, okay. So it’s not available, nor will it ever be, from you?

Entertainment Industry: That is correct. There is no legal way for you to get Product X. But like I said, we’re willing to let you have Product Y (with all those catches).

Customer: No thanks. I’ll just keep looking.

Shady Guy In Trenchcoat: Hey buddy, I hear you’re looking for Product X.

Customer: Yeah, I am. But it’s not legally available for me to purchase.

Shady Guy In Trenchcoat: Well, I happen to have Product X. Available right now for the low price of free. Want it?

Customer: Sure. Why not. The other guys won’t sell it to me, don’t have plans to, and genuinely seemed not interested in making a profit off of Product X.

Shady Guy In Trechcoat: Here you go!

Customer: THANKS!

Entertainment Industry: THIEF!

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I think your problem is that you incorrectly believe this blog is “pro piracy” as opposed to “pro what works” and “anti what doesn’t work.” We’re not “pro piracy.” In fact, we believe that a well thought out business model KILLS piracy better than anything else, and we’d be thrilled if we saw more of that happening.

That’s why we’re happy to see the news above. Smart business models get people to pay. And that’s a good thing.

The problem, all too often, is that some folks in your industry get so obsessed with “piracy” they assume that every discussion is JUST about piracy, when piracy is a side issue. It’s a symptom, not the disease. We’re trying to treat the disease.

Zakida Paul says:

Yet more proof that crowd funding can and does work, but will the legacy industry recognise this? Like fudge they will. They simply refuse to recognise that their is a vibrant film scene outside of their narrow little world and that, ultimately, will be their downfall.

On a side note, I contributed to my first crowd funding project over on pledge music, in helping band Saint Jude fund their next project. It gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling that has made me want to fund other projects when my meager income permits it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Documentaries

That’s probably because people can fund docs on niche subjects they’re interest in, rather than whatever a group of investors thinks will sell. They’re probably easier to convince people to pay for rather than something that on the surface just appears to be “generic gangster/zombie movie number 576”. One of my biggest disappointments was that the sequel to Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon didn’t reach its funding target, and that was something with a proven track record and fanbase. Perhaps they’re just easier to launch than a narrative film.

Anonymous Coward says:

I think the message here is clear: crowdfunding is more successful per dollar spent than the big Hollywood productions.

But the real question now is: Does it generate more revenue?

Does anyone know what was the aggregate revenue generated by these 8000 films? Was it enough to be profitable? Or, put another way: did they generate more than $100 million? If so, how much?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I dunno, seems to me the rebuttal to that idea would be simply asking the question: How many of the people making/funding the films did so primarily for money?

I don’t have any data, and I’m not sure if such data even exists, but my feeling is that in the vast majority of cases, the films were made due to a person/group of people wanting to tell a particular story, and funded due to enough people who thought the story was interesting enough for them to want to pay to see it happen.

With those two as the prime motivations, even breaking even funding/cost-wise for the filmmakers would be considered a resounding success, as the goal was to make the movie, with any profits just being a happy side-effect.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ok, sure, some people just want to make the movie for fun and not for profit.

But assume that someone actually wanted to take it one step further and use the profits of this first crowdfunded movie to create a second one (a sequel, perhaps?).

Would the profits from the first movie be enough to create a new movie at around the same cost?

That’s what I’d like to know. I am just curious if that would be a sustainable business model.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“That’s what I’d like to know. I am just curious if that would be a sustainable business model.”

Why would the funding model matter to your question? If you’ve raised $X million for your production, why would crowdfunding make the outcome different to studio funding? Distribution and marketing of the finished film, perhaps, but that’s the only thing I can think of, and that’s down to things other than the funding method.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You’re ignoring the platform that allowed the first to be made though. If they were able to get enough funding for their first movie, and want to make another, all they have to do is throw up another kickstarter/fundraiser to raise money for the next film.

In a system like that, they don’t need to make enough money from the first film to be able to make a second, they just need to once more come up with a story that’s interesting enough sounding that enough people are willing to pay to see it happen.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“But the real question now is: Does it generate more revenue?”

Than… what? The studio system that regularly claims a loss on even the biggest blockbusters? Probably.

“Does anyone know what was the aggregate revenue generated by these 8000 films? Was it enough to be profitable?”

You’re asking 2 completely different questions, with no real way of answering them. Of those films, some would have been profitable, some wouldn’t. This is natural since each production is its own entity outside of the method used to raise money. You can’t compare them in the same way you can look at, say, every movie produced by Sony and get an overall view of their producers’ success.

As for aggregate revenue, that means nothing without knowing what the outlay was. A movie grossing $20 million would be a flop for most studio productions. A crowdfunded movie costing $3 million would be a success for the same gross. John Carter didn’t come close to recouping its production budget, but you could have had 20 successful crowdfunded projects for the same gross.

You’re also being rather disingenuous. Half the point is that these movies would never have been made by a studio, and a flop here and there doesn’t invalidate the entire business model. Unless you’re personally invested in the legacy system, what matters is that filmmakers get to make their movies, not whether or not a studio handed them the cash to do so. A trend away from the entrenched studio system will only happen if they’re profitable via this method, so you’ll see in time anyway.

Christopher (user link) says:

Good for docs

Except for ‘Pariah,’ every single film linked here is a documentary. Do we know how many of the 8000 that were actually made (an astounding number regardless), are documentaries?

I?ve long suspected funding programs like Kickstarter and Indiegogo were much more friendly to documentaries than narrative films. I suspect the percentage of the 8000 that are docs is quite high.

It would also be interesting to note the budgets and lengths of these films, especially the narrative/dramatic ones. Again, I suspect funding for short films and documentaries to far outstrip that for full-length narratives.

$85.7M / 8000 films = avg. ~$10,700/film.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Good for docs

“Do we know how many of the 8000 that were actually made (an astounding number regardless), are documentaries?”

I personally know of numerous other narrative films not listed that have been/are being funded through Kickstarter (e.g. The Canyons), and there’s several narrative films listed in the Indy Spirit Awards link among overs in the article. A quick Google search suggests a number of others, though I can’t see a comprehensive list.

“Again, I suspect funding for short films and documentaries to far outstrip that for full-length narratives.”

I’m not entirely sure why this matters, especially at this early stage. Short films especially tend to be less commercially viable via traditional means, so of course they’re going to make up a lot of the films people turn to alternative funding methods to produce.

However, there’s definitely a growing number of full length narrative movies being produced. As for documentaries, well as I mentioned in a comment above, this may just be because docs are an easier “sell” to a niche audience. Without seeing a script, I can’t necessarily tell how good/original/different a narrative movie’s actually going be, but I can tell if a “documentary on subject that interests me” will actually interest me.

“$85.7M / 8000 films = avg. ~$10,700/film.”

Which just goes to show how relatively inexpensive movie production has become. It’s worth noting that not all films are 100% funded through Kickstarter – many are partially funded or, for example, are produced by other means then have their marketing or distribution funded through Kickstarter. But, the amount raised and the funding method don’t necessarily have an impact on the actual film quality, which is the most important thing being discussed here.

I’d also like a further list or breakdown if anyone has access to one, but it’s still early days and it’s looking promising from where I sit.

Phil Gomes (profile) says:

Kickstarter vs. NEA

If you ever want to get into a really interesting argument, talk to someone about how Kickstarter makes the National Endowment for the Arts irrelevant.

Think about it:

– The money is given voluntarily, not coerced out of your taxes.

– The money goes to something you’d *like* to see, rather than (for example) a crucifix in a jar of urine.

– Related to the above point: A controversial creative product even partially funded by taxes is likely to get banned. It’s not clear that a Kickstarter-funded project would necessarily buckle to censorship pressure. In fact, for reasons of fundraising or attention, the artist might welcome it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
16:10 David Braben, Once Angry At Used Games, Now A New Business Model Embracer (33)
18:40 Artists Embracing, Rather Than Fighting, BitTorrent Seeing Amazing Results (10)
15:41 Vodo's Big Brother Bundle Shows How Bundles Can Improve The 'Pay What You Want' Concept (12)
23:06 Price Elasticity Can Work: Dropping Ebook Price To $1 Catapulted Year-Old Book Onto NYT Best Seller List (58)
16:03 The Good And Bad In Chaotic eBook Pricing (35)
05:18 Game Creator Finds That Knockoffs Can't Match His Awesome Game (33)
23:09 The Value Of Kickstarter: Connecting With Fans On-The-Fly (18)
10:02 Massive Growth In Independent Musicians & Singers Over The Past Decade (101)
23:54 Cool New Platform For Supporting Artists: Patreon, From Jack Conte (23)
05:46 A New Hope: How Going Free To Play Brought Redemption To Star Wars MMO (48)
11:16 There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter (105)
06:00 When Startups Need More Lawyers Than Employees, The Patent System Isn't Working (55)
03:14 Hitchhiker's Fan-Site Started By Douglas Adams Shows Why Authors Shouldn't Panic Over Derivative Works (27)
09:21 Patents As Weapons: How 1-800-CONTACTS Is Using The Patent System To Kill An Innovative Startup (54)
07:19 How EA's 'Silent Treatment' Pushed The SimCity Story Into The Background (55)
13:30 Deftones Guitarist: People Who Download Our Music Are Fans, They're Welcome To Do So (29)
13:10 Macklemore Explains Why Not Being On A Label Helped Him Succeed (29)
03:45 Successful Self-Published Ebook Authors Sells Print & Movie Rights For $1 Million, But Keeps Digital Rights To Himself (43)
11:53 Musician Alex Day Explains How He Beat Justin Timberlake In The Charts Basically Just Via YouTube (52)
00:09 Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero (42)
20:13 Flattr Makes It Easier Than Ever To Support Content Creators Just By Favoriting Tweets (61)
16:03 Case Study: Band Embraces Grooveshark And Catapults Its Career (21)
19:39 Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust (131)
16:03 Kickstarter-Funded Movie Wins Oscar For Best Documentary (89)
13:41 It's Fine For The Rich & Famous To Use Kickstarter; Bjork's Project Failed Because It Was Lame (20)
17:34 Connecting With Fans In Unique Ways: Band Sets Up Treasure Hunt To Find Fan-Submitted Sounds In New Album (10)
07:27 Just As Many Musicians Say File Sharing Helps Them As Those Who Say It Hurts (131)
20:00 Skateboard Legend Stacy Peralta Demonstrates His Latest Trick: Cashing In By Going Direct-To-Fan (13)
23:58 Wallet Maker Shows Everyone How To Make Their Own Awesome Wallet (16)
11:27 $274 Million Raised Via Kickstarter In 2012 (8)
More arrow