Financing / Crowdfunding

Geoff Hall, I believe it is a good thing ensuring and weighing all possibilities, with awareness of current changes in the industry and how it can affect investment policies, if relevant changes/ influences are the resulting occurrences!

Geoff Harris thank you Geoff, for your response and clear advice. It is greatly appreciated.

Geoff Hall In most types of financing, debt allows you to maintain full ownership and control of the project or asset. However, you must have the cash available to make interest payments on schedule. Equity, on the other hand, does not require fixed interest payments, but investors typically claim a percentage of the project or its profits, which dilutes your ownership.

Each form of financing has advantages and disadvantages. Some prefer debt to retain full ownership, while others prefer equity to reduce cash flow pressure. In practice, most capital structures use a combination of debt and equity to balance risk, cost, and control.

For example, if you take out $10 million in debt to finance an indie film (assuming you have sufficient collateral), it doesn’t matter if the movie bombs at the box office—you are still responsible for repaying the debt, potentially for a very long time. With equity, assuming investors understood the risk, if the project fails, your reputation may suffer, but you typically have no legal obligation to repay the investors.

This difference is the key distinction between debt and equity financing. If a project’s profitability is highly certain, debt is usually preferred to maintain control and ownership. However, since around 90% of indie films fail to some degree, financing entirely with debt is generally not advisable. Equity can be quite useful, especially when cash flow from the project is delayed or several years out. For instance, I have been in a position where I was advised to turn down a $2 million investment because the investor was demanding too much equity (5%), while we could only offer 2% equity at most for a $3.5 million investment.

Kenneth George thanks Kenneth. Could you take me through that discussion about the 2% (5%) equity, please? What was the full budget? Just looking at the surface level, that 2% seems a little low for a $2m investment, unless you had lots of other investors. If it’s too confidential, I’ll understand that you can’t share it here.

Have a great week.

Geoff Hall Sure Geoff, they were not investing in a film project but were looking to invest in a company/venture. They were aiming to secure 5% of the company/venture for a $2 million equity investment. If you’ve ever watched "Shark Tank", it’s a good example of how equity investing works.

Accepting the money would have significantly reduced our valuation - by a ton. Private equity can be risky because you can lose a substantial amount of equity, and equity investors often aim to secure the largest ownership stake possible in any investment.

If a company or venture is valued at $100 million, an equity investor seeking 50% ownership would logically need to invest $50 million. Some investors, however, might try to claim that same stake for only $2 million, $5 million, or $10 million—far below the company’s true value. You would obviously decline such offers unless you were unaware of your company’s intrinsic value or were in a situation of extreme distress. Some equity or venture investors can be opportunistic, even borderline predatory, but ultimately it comes down to negotiation.

In contrast, with debt financing, the lender expects no ownership—just regular interest payments on the loaned amount and repayment of the principal. An equity investor, on the other hand, is not concerned with interest payments. They are focused on the long-term value of their stake: for example, if they own 50% of a $100 million company today, and it grows to $200 million in 3–5 years, they still own 50% and are primarily concerned with how to realize that value, examining exit strategies and liquidity options.

Of course in 3-5 years we don't know what may happen with the economy or your specific industry and that $100 million company may be then worth $50 million of which you still own 50% hence to limit their risk, an equity investor can make you some very strange offers.

Good to see you Stephen Folker and yes, these are great tips. I've tried crowdfunding for books and even threw in a cause to go with it. In the small town I live in (still affluent), I was surprised to see how few people responded even if it roped in a cause that is familiar to them. That was almost scarring and I'll likely never do it again. I like your idea about going the loan route because there, only I'm responsible.

Maurice Vaughan Happy to share. And hope it helps someone!

Leonardo Ramirez 2 - All about existing relationships and those can take time to build! But don't give up!!

Stephen Folker thank you for this!

Abram Christian Sure thing, hope it helps you!

Hello everyone,

My name is Roozbeh, a novelist, screenwriter, and poet.

I live in Iran, and due to the country's extremely harsh economic conditions, misguided policies, and an unjust government, I am under immense financial, emotional, and psychological pressure.

As a fellow human being, I humbly ask all my friends to please provide financial assistance so that I can emigrate from Iran and relocate to another country—where I can freely write novels and screenplays, and address topics such as women's rights, politics, and more without fear.

Please help me.

I don't mean to say this, but I believe your comment could have been a separate post. Best of luck though.

The youth of Skydance might imply more opportunities for independent makers in the digital and interactive field.

I think Paramount Skydance buying WBD is better than Netflix buying WBD, Amanda Toney. One reason is the possibility of more theatrical release movies, and hopefully longer release windows.

I’m a big Skydance fan and love the entire team over there. I’m rooting for them.

Exciting times, never a dull moment in entertainment!

Amanda Toney If regulators take a strict view, Paramount would face fewer antitrust obstacles than Netflix in acquiring WBD’s streaming business, largely because Paramount’s existing streaming footprint is relatively small and would be less likely to push post-transaction concentration beyond defensible ranges under commonly used regulatory metrics. Netflix, by contrast, would almost certainly face intense antitrust scrutiny if it attempted to acquire WBD’s streaming assets; measured by U.S. streaming subscribers, the combined entity could approach roughly 45–50% market share, which—while not a per se monopoly—would strongly support a finding of significant market power and prompt a prolonged regulatory challenge.

Acquiring both WBD’s streaming and studio assets would materially increase regulatory risk for either buyer, but especially for Netflix, as it would combine the leading U.S. streaming distributor with a major content studio, raising both horizontal and vertical foreclosure concerns.

Netflix is making a very large regulatory bet with a breakup fee on the order of $5.8 billion. This fee does not guarantee that the deal will be approved. For comparison, in 2011 AT&T attempted to acquire T-Mobile and agreed to a $4 billion breakup fee. The deal was blocked by regulators, and AT&T ultimately had to pay the fee.

I’m pretty sure that a sale of WBD was always the trajectory. They were chopping things up and shelving projects from the time of the last sale. Prepping to make it more attractive to sell at a profit down the road. I don’t like either of the current sales options, but there might at least be more long term thinking for WB brands and IP than there was under Discovery.

Mike Boas I think that the current CEO, Mr. Zaslav, is looking to cash out almost $660 million in stocks from the sale, which raises concerns about whether his judgment could be influenced by personal financial gain. ( https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/david-zaslav-could-become-billionaire... )

The Film and TV business inherently incurs heavy marketing and distribution expenses. However, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) has the advantage of its numerous cable and TV networks, which significantly reduce its marketing and distribution costs compared to competitors like Netflix and Amazon.

Given this, it's surprising that WBD would consider selling its studios and streaming business or why it would be putting itself up for sale to entities which higher marketing cost and disadvantage. It really highlights the level of mismanagement given the sort of financial distress they claim to be in.

Mike Boas I think I finally found the answer to the question of “why are they selling?” As usual, there are no coincidences.

According to SEC filings by Warner Bros. Discovery, David Zaslav’s compensation structure—both at the time of his hiring and subsequently—strongly incentivized the completion of a major corporate transaction involving the company’s studio and streaming assets by a defined date.

While most CEOs are typically compensated through bonuses and equity awards tied to profitability, operational performance, or long-term increases in stock price, Zaslav received an unusually structured one-time inducement award. He was granted approximately 20.9 million stock options in 2025, with an additional 3.05 million stock options scheduled to be granted in early 2026, subject to continued employment.

Under the terms of his employment agreement, approximately 92% of these stock options are subject to forfeiture if a defined “Separation” or other qualifying transaction is not completed by December 31, 2026. If such a transaction is completed within that timeframe and meets the contractual criteria, Zaslav retains the vast majority of the award; if not, most of it expires worthless.

This incentive structure makes clear where WBD’s priorities were at the time. While one can argue that Zaslav is simply responding to the incentives he was given, some shareholders appear disgruntled and feel that their interests are not what is driving many of the company’s decisions. The employment agreement suggests that facilitating a major transaction involving Warner Bros. Discovery’s studio and streaming businesses by late 2026 was a central consideration at the time of his hiring—and likely why discussions of a WBD sale are occurring at this particular moment.

( https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1437107/000143710725000157/disca... )

I've rewritten scripts for indie director-producers during pre-production and production, Michael Fitzer, MFA. It was because of budget, location, dialogue, etc.

Don't shoot what won't make the final edit. What's That mean, directors say to me. If the edit is the final rewrite, think like an editor and director in final post. What would you trim if you needed to for pacing and length? Review that in the script. Much footage is deleted in the edit, don't waste those resources if possible.

Decrease locations. Can you shoot the bedroom in the house you're already shooting in for another family? Shoot an office in a hospital, etc. Be tight with location moves, number of sets. Too many is often the norm. Same with cast. Eliminate dialogue or give it to someone already there that day.

Pre-shoot in prep scenes that can be done with a light unit or second unit footprint. Take them off the schedule. Or in the end. Shoot your longest interior set last, reduce crew as needed only for that location, get them wrapping instead.

https://www.stage32.com/blog/4282

Agree with you Geoff!

Amanda Toney it's difficult going at the moment, Amanda. It's a terrain that is tough to navigate. I'm hoping to record a panel discussion on the state of the UK film industry, early next year.

Wow! Even more significant international entertainment news! Amanda Toney, things are looking phenomenal for the industry's future!

Geoff Hall, that's also phenomenal!

Amanda Toney Hi Amanda, I’m just wondering if as someone living outside of the UK, do you see as the problems with our industry?