Very interesting piece, Stephen (as always!!) and Bart asked a great question to set you off on your research! I can tell you anecdotally why having a higher percentage of fest revenue from submissions fees matters for a sustainable festival: At Slamdance (of which I'm a cofounder, but not at all active on the day-to-day side), I think one accidental key to our longevity (32+ years) has been a disproportionate reliance on submission fees. Over the years I've seen a lot of other festivals do a much better job at getting state and municipal financing, as well as corporate sponsorship. For all kinds of reasons, Slamdance has simply not been good at either of those sources. As for box office revenue, for most of our existence in Park City, we were limited to our rather small venues. And as a matter of policy, Slamdance has always tried to keep ticket prices much lower than other festivals - especially compared to that big one that was also in Park City. Why has this helped us? In the grand scheme of things, it's meant that Slamdance has weathered the economic and political ups and downs over the years much more smoothly than other festivals that are proportionately more reliant on sponsorship, grants and ticket sales. Over the last 30+ years, Slamdance weathered the DotCom boom and crash, 9/11, the 2008 recession, Covid, our move to LA, etc. Meanwhile, submission rates have remained remarkably steady and robust over the years. So since they're a higher proportion of our budget, Slamdance has been able to persist easier than other festivals that have come and gone during this same time period. Another reason - and I have to give full credit to fellow cofounder @JonFitzgerald who came up with this idea in our second year - we started a screenplay competition as an alternate source of revenue and activity during our slow months. There are plenty of other reasons why Slamdance has persisted this long - not least of which the incredible dedication of our filmmaker community and stalwart leadership of Peter Baxter over most of our existence. But I always tell other festival directors - especially new ones - to learn lessons from the Slamdance model, one way or another.
I’ve seen a similar pattern while distributing independent films across Europe and the Middle East. The projects that succeed usually build a community long before release.
This is flattering for festivals but we could also consider that the filmmakers contribution is the entry fee + the ticket sales which, after all, derives from the filmmakers work. Screening fees are very rarely if ever reversed to us. Adopting this view, it's not 7 to 16% contribution from the filmmakers but 40 to 50%. Given that apart from the top 5 festivals which are not open to lambda independent filmmakers, there is no distribution opportunity, no career launch, no press, no meaningful networking, and that most marketing costs are shouldered by filmmakers, we cannot consider festivals a great business opportunity.
Helpful context. I’m going into my 4th year operating the Green Mountain Film Festival (which has existed for decades before I came on) and fees were never a large part of our revenue. In order to make the festival appealing, we had to make it accessible.
Very interesting piece, Stephen (as always!!) and Bart asked a great question to set you off on your research! I can tell you anecdotally why having a higher percentage of fest revenue from submissions fees matters for a sustainable festival: At Slamdance (of which I'm a cofounder, but not at all active on the day-to-day side), I think one accidental key to our longevity (32+ years) has been a disproportionate reliance on submission fees. Over the years I've seen a lot of other festivals do a much better job at getting state and municipal financing, as well as corporate sponsorship. For all kinds of reasons, Slamdance has simply not been good at either of those sources. As for box office revenue, for most of our existence in Park City, we were limited to our rather small venues. And as a matter of policy, Slamdance has always tried to keep ticket prices much lower than other festivals - especially compared to that big one that was also in Park City. Why has this helped us? In the grand scheme of things, it's meant that Slamdance has weathered the economic and political ups and downs over the years much more smoothly than other festivals that are proportionately more reliant on sponsorship, grants and ticket sales. Over the last 30+ years, Slamdance weathered the DotCom boom and crash, 9/11, the 2008 recession, Covid, our move to LA, etc. Meanwhile, submission rates have remained remarkably steady and robust over the years. So since they're a higher proportion of our budget, Slamdance has been able to persist easier than other festivals that have come and gone during this same time period. Another reason - and I have to give full credit to fellow cofounder @JonFitzgerald who came up with this idea in our second year - we started a screenplay competition as an alternate source of revenue and activity during our slow months. There are plenty of other reasons why Slamdance has persisted this long - not least of which the incredible dedication of our filmmaker community and stalwart leadership of Peter Baxter over most of our existence. But I always tell other festival directors - especially new ones - to learn lessons from the Slamdance model, one way or another.
I’ve seen a similar pattern while distributing independent films across Europe and the Middle East. The projects that succeed usually build a community long before release.
This is flattering for festivals but we could also consider that the filmmakers contribution is the entry fee + the ticket sales which, after all, derives from the filmmakers work. Screening fees are very rarely if ever reversed to us. Adopting this view, it's not 7 to 16% contribution from the filmmakers but 40 to 50%. Given that apart from the top 5 festivals which are not open to lambda independent filmmakers, there is no distribution opportunity, no career launch, no press, no meaningful networking, and that most marketing costs are shouldered by filmmakers, we cannot consider festivals a great business opportunity.
Helpful context. I’m going into my 4th year operating the Green Mountain Film Festival (which has existed for decades before I came on) and fees were never a large part of our revenue. In order to make the festival appealing, we had to make it accessible.