Sounds interesting. You should give it a try to see how it works. I think any product that people like can be successfully sold, so it's really a matter of producing quality movies that people like then making them available. Sounds cliche but quality is the key. Produce true dynamite and you will have sales...but it must be truly dynamite!...but that's fine because that's what we all want to do...its the reason we got into filmmaking in first place...to make killer movies.

Step 1 - Produce TRULY DYNAMITE film Step 2 - Make sure it really is DYNAMITE...film must be "lightning in a bottle!...not just merely "pretty good". "Pretty good" is worthless when you don't have an advertising budget...and may be worthless even if you do. Step 3 - Sell

Quality is everything.

I agree and disagree. Some of the films you mentioned are an LCD situation (lowest common deniminator) and have succeeded, so you could say low quality succeeded. But my point is that if you have good taste (both in classical film sense, and in innovative/modern film sense)...and you produce TRUE DYNAMITE QUALITY by your own standards...then you can be commercially successful. I.e. you can blend and manifest quality artistry with wide commercial appeal...and can succeed in sales. My point is that if an indie guy produces soemthing that is "pretty good" and tries to sell online without big advertising budget...it won't succeed because "pretty good" isn't good enough to sell off word of mouth. Word of mouth (and limited/no budget social media marketing) will only work with TRUE DYNAMITE LIGHTNING IN THE BOTTLE level quality.

Please excuse caps...that reflects my enthusiasm for what I see as the great potential for indie filmmakers...if they stay focused on "quality".

That's my approach and I say it should be the aporoach of anyone who dreams of producing "greatness" and then making money. Forget the world...produce the "gem"...then take it to market.

I think that level of quality is a bit of a false aim. A truly great short film can get you a little attention, but less than you might think--especially these days when the film and commercial industries are contracting and no one is really looking for the next great filmmaker.

Also, even if you do create something amazing that goes viral, how do you propose to both let people know about your short film AND then get them to pay for it. That's been the Catch-22 for short film filmmakers for ages and it's what the Business Model addresses.

@matt_gh2 Yeah, I wasn't trying to say not to produce quality. It's just that making something good, really good, is no more a guarantee of commercial success than making something bad is a guarantee of failure. The catch here is "commercial success" which nobody has a formula for since what works once might fail when repeated, with no discernable reason for the difference in performance (see: Hollywood).

Shorts are very problematic in this culture and haven't really ever been commercially viable, by themselves, as individual units, beyond their function in some cases as a "calling card", opening up other opportunities. Even that is something that occurs so rarely it borders on myth and for every real example a healthy percentage of those other opportunities never come to fruition, because the filmmaker didn't have much to offer besides what was seen in the short (see: 405 the Movie). This is a shame really. But we live in a culture (America at least) that does not value art for its own sake nor does it reward it.

Episodic shorts enjoy examples of success and some for the collection of shorts into an anthology. But shorts just by themselves, I've only ever seen that work for animation. Spike and Mike put several fellow animators through school and into new cars for the sick-and-twisted shorts that they would produce on campus at CalArts for their always sold-out travelling animation festival.

But I'm hopeful that a new model can be created that overcomes our present reality. So, best of luck to Mr. Horn.

@DouglasHorn Interesting read Douglas, and I felt very old after reading it. Your idea is the same type of program I've used for a long time, except you've improved the platform. As mentioned, I'm old and am still struggling with the new cashless society. Internet and a shallow audience.

You're plan adds some light at the end of that tunnel. I'm going to re-read it in a little.

Thanks!

@kavadni - Wow, thank you very much. I truly appreciate that. I'm going to be releasing more of my short films for free shortly--as many as my contracts allow me to. And I'll be putting out new shorts soon, starting with one called Tape Recorder. Please don't give up on DIVERGENCE. There will be 5 new episodes soon and we're working on ways to keep the series going and at a much faster production pace too. The truth about DIVERGENCE is that even though we get some great help from some talented people, at the heart of it, it's a series that's made by two guys who still need day jobs. But we're hoping to change that.

About Full Disclosure--bear with me while I set it up. Rather than just creating a solution for myself, I'm trying to work through a lot of these questions in a way that's transparent and can help other filmmakers. So part 2 of this Open Source Short Film Business Model will break down who I'm using and why with costs, etc. It just takes a little longer this way.

@neokoo - You could be right about artificial scarcity. On some levels I agree with this in principle, but looking around various marketplaces, it seems like artificial scarcity can work quite well in some contexts. (Gas prices?)

As for toying with viewers--that's not my aim and I hadn't really thought about it being perceived that way. I think you make a good point that any filmmaker who does this should frame it in a way so that it does not seem capricious. At the moment, the only part that I'm advocating not disclosing is exactly when the film goes dark. (But the time for it to become available again would be made clear.) Television does this all the time--a network show is available for a certain time frame and after that you can purchase the episode. To be clear, in my model, once you purchase the episode, it's yours forever.

Anyway, it sounds like you have some interesting thoughts on the subject, I'd welcome your comments on the post. I'm trying to direct the discussion over there, and I suppose if I want to succeed in that I should discuss it less on other sites.

There's no way that marketing will ever overcome market fundamentals: vast oversupply of product, and very limited demand. Who's interested in shorts without obvious commercial characteristics? For the most part, the only audience would be appear to be other filmmakers who make shorts. Even with commercial characteristics, where's the public interest in them, beyond the festival circuit, where they're programmed reluctantly? The business model for independent features is bad enough; for shorts, it would be appear to be altogether hopeless today.

In the U.S., the arts are supposed to redeem themselves by making money, but it's no secret that virtually all other governments subsidize film production. Can't blame people for trying, but where has non-Hollywood filmmaking ever made money, without state or philanthropic support? What does happen occasionally is that an independent feature -- or more rarely, a short -- will promote a commercial career or lead to a better financed independent production. But in that case it might be useful to distinguish between steps taken for career advancement, and an actual business plan expected to generate income.

There is an insatiable demand for compelling cinema, long or short.

I'll agree that there's no glut of "good product" (or better still, let's say "great product"), but there's no demand for it, either. Outside the Hollywood realm, can you name any recent films which succeeded commercially thanks to their excellence or originality?

This has always been a problem, for cinema: it's a populist, vulgar medium which necessarily relies on trash and superficiality for an element of excitement, including classics like Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane or Vertigo.

Try to turn the medium into a contemplative or profound art-house product, and you'll end up with a very tiny audience and, in many cases, a film which fails to succeed even on its own terms, because it's working against the very nature of cinema as a mass-audience real-time experience -- and where the requirements are different from those of the theater, the novel or the visual arts, and there isn't the same freedom.

Anyway, the films I consider worth watching today generally don't make money, or make so little that they'd never get made based on a rational expectation of showing a profit. You wouldn't expect lyric poetry or string quartets to make money today, so why would films with ambitions to high art?

Beat the Devil isn't really a good example here because it's a long-form commercial as much or more as it's a short-form film and exists beyond the pressures or issues related to short films. That was part of the BMW FILMS campaign of 2001 (of which the Scott Bros. were producers). It shares more with Ridley Scott's "1984" campaign for Apple than it does any legitimate short film made for the sake of making a short film. While it's great, and I love it myself, it is a commercial at the end of the day (admitting, of course, that a majority of great commercials are, themselves, micro films).

Each installment's A-list director made a short film on a commercial shoot's budget, and most commercial shoots are way, way spendier than your average short film or indulgent USC thesis short. They were financed and commissioned by BMW to market their cars. These are what eventually led to The Transporter franchise, only they didn't, unfortunately, keep Clive Owen (who appears as "The Driver" in all of the BMW FILMS).

Guy Ritchie's is quite entertaining as well. I'm betting his installment for BMW cost more to make than his indie feature budget for Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

There wasn't any budget to recoup here. It was brilliant marketing on the part of BMW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hire

On October 21, 2005, BMW stopped distribution of The Hire on DVD and removed all eight films from the BMWFilms website just four years after the first film debuted. The series was abandoned, reportedly because the project had become too expensive. BMW's Vice President of Marketing James McDowell, originator of the BMWFilms project, left BMW to become the VP of sales and marketing for BMW's "Mini USA" division. BMW also split from longtime ad partner Fallon Worldwide which was the creative production outlet for the series and BMW's German division had attempted to become involved with the US division of the company, cutting costs.

...but even with their deep pockets, they cried "Uncle." But, yeah, short films are quite viable when you have a multi-national corporation writing the checks for you.

And, unfortunately, I wouldn't hold my breath for an HD version, seeing as how nobody at BMW is still involved with the creatives. I forget now if their custom QT player streamed anything higher than 480P equivalent back then. Remember, early 21st century there were still people on dial-up and your average DSL was like 768K down. I doubt it was finished at HD which was still in its infancy and 24P HD had only just been available.

Clearly, I don't think that this is something that every filmmaker who makes a short can turn into a living wage. However, I'm hopeful that for people who make some high quality shorts and know how to be mindful of their spend, that this approach (especially as it evolves) could enable them to make more great short films and pay some people along way.

As the situation stands, that's not really a possibility for even the best short films. And it may ultimately prove not to be possible. But I just hadn't seen any serious new thinking applied to the question in a while even though there are several new tools, consumer attitudes, and market forces that could be brought into play. Anyway, that's the genesis and I've been having a lot of interesting discussions on the topic lately, so it continues to evolve. More on the blog soon.

On the topic of making short films for a price--I'm about to release a new one called Tape Recorder, which I'm hoping to be a new Full Disclosure for me. I'm trying to marry the new model of DSLR filmmaking (use only the cameras, lights, editing system, etc. you own and can use for free) with high quality, vetted scripts and talented professional actors and keys so that there's both high quality and low cost to help make these short films viable and sustainable. Stay tuned.