Head, heart, and hustle: exploring the value of independent filmmakers

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Head, Heart, and Hustle: Exploring the Value of Independent Filmmakers

Breven Angaelica Warren

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2023

© Copyright by Breven
Angaelica Warren 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Breven Angaelica Warren certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kim Ferrario
Eric Canny
Briana Hinga, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This research addresses content creators and independent filmmakers seeking investment in their
original intellectual property projects. Establishing individual independent filmmakers within
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, this structural framework was used to understand the
barriers to financial support and investment as creators navigate a theoretical talent pipeline to
the entertainment industry environment. A mixed-methods approach was used with a quantitative
survey to better understand the creator’s value as head (growth mindset), heart (grit, passion, and
perseverance), and hustle (effort, habitual practices, and the accumulation of institutional
knowledge). Interviews were conducted with established industry professionals and independent
film investors to better understand how, where, and why they choose specific filmmakers for
financial opportunities. The research herein intended to provide additional information for artists,
content creators, and independent filmmakers seeking investment by comparing the filmmaker
value findings with investors’ practices. This cross reference provided additional data metrics on
improving data collection for talent discovery databases that list filmmakers for potential
investment validation and competency models of early career filmmaking talent, ultimately
inviting a more holistic understanding of the creator’s viability for investments. This data could
include insights for more informed decision making and a stronger industry that may lead to
more equitable access to opportunity and reliable information for future investment decision
making. Additionally, a greater understanding of the creator’s head, heart, and hustle as
valuation metrics through such financial engineering theory proposals may add to education and
awareness for early career content creators and independent filmmakers on their creative career
trajectories as well as drive more equitable access alongside limiting liability and reducing risk
on early-career creator investment decision making.

v
Acknowledgements
My most indebted humility and gratefulness goes to my growing family. It is only
because of the support of my amazing partner that this is possible, as we have added two small
children during the course of this research to our clan of four boys, all of whom have joined us in
our journey of learning and unlearning. My family inspires me each and every day for what it
means to be thoughtful and intentional in all our efforts. I am grateful to be building a home
founded in love and kindness, and I hope that it resonates in all of my work.
This research is inspired by and dedicated to the independent filmmakers who have
shared their stories with me over the course of my own ongoing creative career. The artists are
whom I am here to champion, and I am aspiring to support those who are passionately called to
independent filmmaking and storytelling. These creatives have exposed their experiences and
challenges with authenticity and grace, allowing me the opportunity to know them better and
understand what access to opportunity means beyond my position.
I am grateful to the arts organizations that have allowed me in, offered me space to be
involved in all aspects, from logistics to leadership, and have provided a framework by which to
see artists’ support in action. Thank you to the studios, agencies, and networks that have allowed
me to sit at decision making tables and invited me into meaningful conversation with leadership
to discuss what talent discovery is, as well as what it could be. Special thanks to the executives,
industry professionals, and aspiring filmmakers who have forged their way in this industry and
shared insights, challenges, and truths of what that journey and experience can be so that others
may learn and grow.
Thank you to my incredible cohorts within my program who helped me find my voice
and encouraged me to the end. And finally, thank you to the support of my academic advisor,

vi
who stood by me through challenges at the University of Southern California, where I eventually
found my constructive challengers and change champions in my final committee and chair. I am
ever grateful for you choosing to share your time and thoughtful consideration with me and this
research. And if any of this research does a service to what I understand in my own head, heart,
and hustle, it’s thanks to my gracious and patient editor. Thank you all for making this possible.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Setting the Stage ..................................................................................................................2
Why the Entertainment Industry ........................................................................................18
Context and Background of the Problem ...........................................................................19
Purpose of the Project ........................................................................................................19
Research Questions ............................................................................................................20
Importance of the Study .....................................................................................................21
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ...................................................22
Definitions..........................................................................................................................22
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................26
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................27
The Economy of the Entertainment Industry .....................................................................29
Content Creators as Talent Workforce ..............................................................................30
Entrepreneurship ................................................................................................................32
The Content Creator’s Human and Social Capital .............................................................35
Exploring Independent Film Investment Behavior ............................................................36
The Cost of Development, The Algorithm Excuse ............................................................39
Diversity Initiative Efforts .................................................................................................44
Theoretical Frameworks ....................................................................................................51
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................57

viii
Summary ............................................................................................................................58
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................60
Methodology ......................................................................................................................60
The Researcher...................................................................................................................66
Identity: An Unbounded Description of My Positionality .................................................68
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................71
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................76
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................................79
Ethics..................................................................................................................................79
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................80
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................82
Quantitative: Independent Filmmaker Findings ................................................................84
Qualitative: Industry Professional and Investor Findings ................................................125
Research Question 1: How or Where Do Industry Professionals and/or Investors Find
Independent Filmmakers for Potential Collaboration, Support, or Investment? .............133
Research Question 2: What Characteristics of an Independent Filmmaker Do
Industry Professionals and/or Investors Value Most for Financial Support? ..................146
Research Question 3: What Experiences Are Industry Professionals and/or Investors
Looking for When It Comes to Identifying Independent Filmmakers for Discovery
and Investment? ...............................................................................................................156
Summary ..........................................................................................................................165
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................170
Discussion of Findings .....................................................................................................170
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................186
Limitations and Delimitations ..........................................................................................202
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................207
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................214

ix
References ....................................................................................................................................223
Appendix A: Research Design Matrix for Qualitative Study Portion .........................................239
Appendix B: Research Design Matrix for Quantitative Study Portion........................................241

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Fifteen Most Represented Countries 88
Table 2: Survey Results on Growth Mindset 90
Table 3: Percentages for Survey Results on Growth Mindset 91
Table 4: Survey Results for Consistency of Interest 94
Table 5: Survey Results for Consistency of Interest 95
Table 6: Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort 97
Table 7: Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort 98
Table 8: Mean Value Survey Results for Hustle in Entertainment and Independent
Filmmaking 101
Table 9: Survey Results for Hustle in Entertainment and Independent Filmmaking 103
Table 10: Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 106
Table 11: Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 107
Table 12: Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 112
Table 13: Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 113
Table 14: Passion and Perseverance of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years 115
Table 15: Characteristics of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years 116
Table 16: Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 118
Table 17: Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 120
Table 18: Demographics of Survey Respondents with Less Than 5 Years’ Experience 122
Table 19: Survey Respondents with More Than 20 Years’ Experience 124
Table 20: Interviewees 128
Table 21: Themes Identified From Top Film Investors 133
Appendix A: Research Design Matrix for Qualitative Study Portion 239
Appendix B: Research Design Matrix for Quantitative Study Portion 241

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Artist and The Investor: Two Stakeholder Groups and the Space Between 2
Figure 2: 2023 Media Universe Map Created by Evan Shapiro 3
Figure 3: Atomic Structure of an Independent Filmmaker in their Universe 5
Figure 4: Atomic Structure of an Independent Filmmaker in Relation to Its Position As the
“Individual” in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model 8
Figure 5: Indie Filmmaker Recoupment Example by Stephen Follows 9
Figure 6: Indie Film Strategy Lecture Series by Stephen Follows 13
Figure 7: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model As It Relates to Author’s Research 54
Figure 8: The Hierarchical Structure of the Entertainment Industry From the Perspective of
an Individual Filmmaker and Content Creator 56
Figure 9: A Possible Competency Model As It Relates to the Values of an Independent
Filmmaker and Content Creator 58
Figure 10: Participants Who Identify as Independent Filmmakers 84
Figure 11: Participants’ Years as Independent Filmmakers 86
Figure 12: Participants’ Years as Independent Filmmakers in Percentages 86
Figure 13: Participants’ Countries 87
Figure 14: Participants’ Global Distribution 89
Figure 15: Graph for Survey Results on Growth Mindset 91
Figure 16: Distribution of Survey Results on Growth Mindset 92
Figure 17: Graph for Survey Results for Consistency of Interest 94
Figure 18: Distribution for Survey Results for Consistency of Interest 96
Figure 19: Graph for Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort 97
Figure 20: Distribution of Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort 99
Figure 21: Hustle in Entertainment and Independent Filmmaking (Mean Value) 102
Figure 22: Distribution of Survey Results for Hustle in Entertainment and Independent
Filmmaking 102

xii
Figure 23: How Participants Learned of This Research 105
Figure 24: Bar Graph of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 106
Figure 25: Pie Chart of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 107
Figure 26: Bar Graph of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 108
Figure 27: Pie Chart of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 109
Figure 28: Growth Mindset for Independent Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 110
Figure 29: Growth Mindset for Independent Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 111
Figure 30: Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 112
Figure 31: Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 114
Figure 32: Passion and Perseverance of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years 115
Figure 33: Characteristics of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years 117
Figure 34: Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years 119
Figure 35: Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years 121
Figure 36: Demographics of Survey Respondents With Less Than 5 Years’ Experience 123
Figure 37: Survey Respondents With More Than 20 Years’ Experience 124
Figure 38: Efforts Behind Success 196

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Early career opportunities for emerging content creators and independent filmmaking
talent are largely considered a meritocracy (McNamee & Miller, 2018), as artists are expected to
do the work before they, essentially, are discovered. These opportunities and the effort required
to fulfill them often establish credibility, reliability, and validation for the initial seed investment
and the upfront costs for creators to do their creative filmmaking work. This work establishes the
artists as viable for independent film investment and allows them to create their early career
films, establishing them for potential future creative opportunities and creative careers within
entertainment. This research focused on the independent filmmakers’ head, heart, and hustle to
better understand the needs and priorities of early investment in these filmmakers by
entertainment executives, industry professionals, and independent film investors.
Content creators and independent filmmakers for this study are the artists and the creators
who cannot bankroll and/or may not have the human and social capital connections to pay for
their initial or early career independent films. The industry professionals and investors are those
who are interested in supporting or actively investing in independent film. The space between the
filmmaker and the investor in Figure 1 is wide. The research herein intended to provide
additional information for artists, content creators, and independent filmmakers seeking
investment for their original intellectual property, as well as proposed data metrics on
independent filmmakers to improve talent discovery practices for future early career investment
opportunities.

2

Figure 1
The Artist and The Investor: Two Stakeholder Groups and the Space Between

Setting the Stage
The entertainment industry is built upon and riddled with a myriad of prevailing
narratives for artists, creators, and independent filmmakers seeking to pursue creative careers in
the entertainment industry. Many of these popular narratives relating to talent discovery fuel the
creation of independent film, also known as creative content or content. A foundational aspect of
3

the wider entertainment industry is the relationship and disconnect between artists and the
financial support required to make their art. Figure 2 shares the businesses, the corporations, and
the studio side of the industry as a galaxy or orbiting planets. Here, industry executives and
industry professionals float like space pioneers from one growing business conglomerate to
another, a galactic industry maelstrom fueled by its ability to absorb smaller planets into larger
ones, where corporations, as planets, break apart when they get too large and the cycle continues,
ever splitting and merging in the fashion of organic matters in space.

Figure 2
2023 Media Universe Map Created by Evan Shapiro

4

The independent filmmakers and content creators referred to in this research are the stars,
the dust, and the space particles between everything else. The artists often ricochet off the
planets, hoping to find a home or to find a place to be supported in their struggle to create. In
many ways they are the creative energy of the space itself in this proposed entertainment galaxy,
the very atomic particles that support the structure between the planets. These microscopic
organisms, the independent filmmakers and content creators, occupy all the space in between,
both literally and figuratively, millions of them. According to Koetsier (2020) and Yuan (2020),
there are some 50 million individuals who identify as content creators globally, with 3 million of
them identifying as independent filmmakers. Additionally, based on the numbers at FilmFreeway
and Backstage, there are some 20,000 films produced annually and another 14,000 U.S. film
degrees awarded annually, along with another 1,500 annual professional development lab
fellows honing their craft as independent filmmakers. These talented artists and creators are
developing ideas, creating content, and pushing forward their original intellectual property that
may become shooting stars, like a film festival darling, or get absorbed by existing planets, such
as indie studios or bigger corporations. Still, most of the time, based on this research and the data
available, the independent filmmakers are simply struggling to exist in the space in between,
balancing in their own microcosm of available tools, resources, and opportunities, as depicted in
Figure 3.

5

Figure 3
Atomic Structure of an Independent Filmmaker in their Universe

From the content creator and independent filmmaker perspective, these artists sit in an
orbit being pulled in many directions (Figure 4). Here, from this perspective, the industry would
happily presume that they, the artists and creators, should succeed in all ways if they only try
hard enough (McNamee & Miller, 2018). There is an expectation that an emerging creator
should be building a network of creative colleagues, amassing human and social capital,
alongside a strong social media following, some 100,000 Instagram followers, a few million
subscribers on YouTube, a podcast with a global reach, have short films on the film festival
circuit, and have some scripts winning writing competitions. The creatives are expected to get a
film education, get filmmaking experience, and work on productions anywhere and everywhere
possible to build their institutional knowledge of the entertainment industry. They are further
6

expected to be engaged in shadowing and mentor programs while volunteering on other people’s
projects and actively doing seed funding campaigns for their future features and episodic
projects. These inequitable expectations are effectually unsustainable.

Figure 4
Atomic Structure of an Independent Filmmaker in Relation to Its Position As the “Individual” in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model

7
8

From a more structural perspective, the filmmakers are at the core of Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model. They are unique creative individuals who hope to work their way out through
the varying degrees of the system, in this case, the entertainment industry. Some creatives are
making content for the microsystem: their family and peers. The microsystem is often the initial
accessible form of validation for a creator. Others are extending to the mesosystem, where one
could say the regional film festivals and local film schools exist. This layer, just beyond the
individual creator, is seemingly accessible and can often be achieved with a modicum of effort
but does require some elemental support, usually from the creator’s microsystem. The exosystem
consists of more elite film development programs, Sundance, Rotterdam, Venice, and Berlinale,
the USC and AFI Film School, and more highly curated exhibitions. While this is presented as a
fluid next step, it is a barrier for a creator to make it to this next level.
Unless creators’ microsystems and mesosystems involve human and or social capital at
these earlier levels or they have expendable finances to support their efforts, it can be a daunting
effort to break through to the exosystem. These creators, expending effort and finances to make
it to the exosystem, could be the future indie-darlings or set themselves up for future
opportunities with all the potential to reach as far as some executive decision makers. Often, the
prevailing narrative is that if creators can make it here, they will be discovered by the leading
decision makers who live beyond the exosystem in the macrosystem where marketplace
decisions are made. For films produced into the marketplace, a visual of the possible financial
return is helpful to understand the unsustainable profits, even then, that become available to the
filmmakers who break through to the macrosystem in Stephen Follows image (Figure 5).

Figure 5
Indie Filmmaker Recoupment Example by Stephen Follows

Note. From Indie Film Strategy by S. Follows, 2022. (https://bit.ly/3qkpCuB). Copyright 2022 by Stephen Follows.
9
10

Independent filmmakers are encouraged to keep creating with traditional returns
becoming less and less viable in an ever-changing marketplace with shifting distribution options.
Here, the marketplace and the global entertainment industry are the macrosystem, only intended
for an elite few creators destined to be the studio filmmakers and stars that may be eventually
absorbed as future creative executives and leaders in the entertainment industry.
Stepping Out to See the Magnitude of the Entertainment Industry
The global entertainment industry market is estimated at $2.3 trillion U.S. dollars, with a
growth rate of 5.9%, according to Market Reports World (2022). Major corporations and small
independent studios develop, produce, and distribute content in an ever-increasing complex
media orbit depicted by media cartographer Evan Shapiro in Figure 1. Market Reports World
(2022) estimated the market size and share at $3.5 trillion by 2028. According to Follows (2017),
there are approximately 700 films released each year in the U.K. and U.S. alone, from the
approximately 20,000 films made globally each year. Follows (2022) reported that of these films,
94.3% are independently made, and 5.7% are studio films. Of studio releases, 2.4% are
profitable, and 2.7% are unprofitable. Of the 94.3% independent films, 9.2% will be widely
distributed, with 1.2% being profitable and 2.2% unprofitable. This leaves 85.1% of all
independent films made annually with no trackable data about their potential recoupment,
success, or failure through alternative distribution means. This presents an enormous gap in data
tracking. This 85.1% of all independent films include most early career and emerging
independent filmmakers elevating their films into the marketplace. This means that some 17,020
independent films made in a year are not tracked by leading databases that help determine future
filmmaking financing opportunities.
11

Beyond their market engagement, the literature and data also imply that whoever made
that other 85.1% or 17,020 films does not exist on any valuation metrics. Thus, the makers of
most films produced essentially exist below the surface of recorded and trackable data. This
missed opportunity and gap in recorded or trackable data, along with the economic impact and
wealth associated with production, inspired me to conduct this study, as there is an observable
need for more expansive and readily available data to ensure informed investment decisions for
artists, content creators, and independent filmmakers as well as for the executives and industry
leaders.
With this marked 85.1% or 17,020 films produced in the United States and the United
Kingdom each year not reporting a theatrical release or major distribution deal (Follows, 2022;
Figure 6), how might analysts explore breaking down the economics of these untracked films?
How might those involved in talent discovery identify who is doing the work, the effective
hustle, of making independent films outside the mainstream data and tracked market? Merton (as
cited in Lo, 2020) explained how often very esoteric tools could be used to create value for
investors and shareholders. This approach is comparable to this research's interest in the indie
filmmaker’s head, heart, and hustle. Value is herein understood as what makes a content creator
and/or filmmaker ripe for potential investment, both for profit and philanthropic support. So,
while this research presents the importance and advocates for tracking the data of the unreported
17,020 films, it also proposes that the entertainment industry consider more than just the films,
which can be considered a major league homerun. What would it look like to also collect
essential data for the unreported filmmakers in this gap of trackable data?
This study presents the potential long-term profitability of early career investment
strategies for emerging filmmakers (Danyliuk, 2020) by tracing their hits-at-base. According to
12

Beaumont (2004) and Chen (2022), financial engineering integrates quantitative analysis,
statistics, data mining, and artificial intelligence (AI), as well as other applications, to optimize
and analyze various financial decisions for risk management and forecasting. Should the data and
trackable reporting include these currently untracked filmmakers making the majority of
independent films, or might they be considered available for future investment opportunities?
This research explored what could be learned from financial engineering practices and research
about alternative metrics and valuation possibilities, as it proposes potential valuations of metrics
of expanded characteristics of independent filmmakers, referred to herein as the head, heart, and
hustle. Additionally, a greater understanding of head, heart, and hustle as valuation metrics in
such financial engineering theory proposals may add to education and awareness for early career
content creators and independent filmmakers on their creative career trajectories.

Figure 6
Indie Film Strategy Lecture Series by Stephen Follows

Note. From Indie Film Strategy by S. Follows, 2022. (https://bit.ly/3qkpCuB). Copyright 2022 by Stephen Fellows.
13
14

This study explored the space between the creator and their possible financing
opportunities with investors and industry executives. The creators and filmmakers were
researched by exploring their passion, persistence, and efforts toward their creative career goals.
These were examined alongside and compared with the priorities of industry professionals and
investors who seek independent filmmakers and content creators for potential investment. A
better understanding of the creator’s journey is offered in contrast to the investors’ talent
discovery and investment practices. This examination offers a better understanding of the
filmmakers’ potential value in relation to investment opportunities. This value can be based on
the singular multi-hyphenate creator, or it could be established on the team (Mehta, 2017; Slated,
2020), as is often the case with the independent filmmaker and the collaborators they bring to the
table, which can be understood as their human and social capital invested in the project. This
value is determined via methods that were explored further in this research to understand creator
value in comparison to what investors find valuable in a creator.
To understand the artists, independent filmmakers, and content creators, this study
utilized quantitative data to seek insight into non-traditional measures of independent
filmmakers’ value proposed as head, heart, and hustle, which translated to existing research on
growth mindset, passion, perseverance, persistence, and habituated hustle practices as perceived
by industry professionals and investors, using instruments developed by Duckworth (2016),
Dweck (2015), LaPorte (2017), and Mehta (2017), along with the writings of Apple (2020) and
Patel et al. (2016). To better understand the investor practice of talent discovery, this study
examined qualitative interviews with entertainment industry executives, investors, and
established filmmakers who have the authority and capital to greenlight and/or directly finance
independent films. These two sets of data are explored independently to add value to the
15

disconnect between creatives and their potential investment opportunities with executives and
investors.
Improving transparency for independent filmmakers alongside evolving business
practices for talent discovery could improve both profit potential and equitable representation by
addressing early career entry points and acknowledgements that determine credibility and
viability for future opportunities. The study examined the creator via a quantitative survey in
relation to their passion, persistence, and efforts and gleaned insights from qualitative interviews
with the investors and decision makers who financially support early career filmmakers. These
two modes of inquiry were originally thought to possibly intersect. However, based on the study,
the two subject groups live more disparately than expected, separated by the barrier between the
mesosystem and the exosystem if we explore the data via Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) ecological
framework model.
Investors seek talent discovery and support independent filmmakers. The talent’s passion,
persistence, and effort are not always what establishes them as valuable in the eyes of potential
investment opportunities in current practice. Talent herein refers to the artists and content
creators who identify as individual independent filmmakers. Beyond their development, the
research examined the importance of their institutional knowledge (Hillman, 2017) of industry
experience (Mehta, 2017). Institutional knowledge, which is a collective understanding of how
an industry works and who is involved, its systemic structures, processes and protocols, all
interrelated and interdependent within an industry or business of best practices (Hillman, 2017),
also referred to as tacit knowledge by Mehta (2017), is developed by independent filmmakers as
they are involved in the practices and processes of the entertainment industry, which is referred
to here as well as, hustle (LaPorte, 2017; Patel, 2016). These ongoing habitual hustle practices
16

further establish the institutional knowledge of independent filmmakers, whose career
trajectories then exhibit the foundational experience and understanding of the work involved
below the surface of traditional tracking and assessment methods (Cadigan, 2021; Gladwell,
2008; Hillman, 2017; LaPorte. 2017; Mehta, 2017; Patel, 2016). The intent is to better
understand what values filmmakers possess and how that relates to what drives investors’
decisions towards the value of filmmakers for financing talent discovery so that emerging
filmmakers might have better opportunities to see their projects funded.
The initial funding necessary by investors seeking to support talent discovery can be
explored through the research of various industries reevaluating the talent workforce, as with
Cadigan (2021) and the filmmakers researching and deconstructing the production model, Eddy
and Eddy (2021), as well as Grant’s (2021) research exploring the need to reevaluate and rethink
processes and practices for advances moving forward across industries. By evaluating the hustle
(LaPorte, 2017; Mehta, 2017), habits, and accomplishments of talent earlier on in an independent
filmmaker’s career, it is proposed that alternative metrics could increase return potential by
allowing for more informed decision making based on the financial engineering principles of
Beaumont (2004).
Traditionally, a creator’s credibility was largely based on formal accomplishments and
relationships, including studio connections, elite industry ties, and access to financing (Cones,
2008; Eddy & Eddy, 2021). Ultimately, these filmmakers became defined by their box office
success (Ellwood, 1997; Ferrari, 2020). This traditional form of credibility was compounded
with brand recognition, often in-studio and in-network recommendations that further grounded
their human and societal capital (Regev, 2018; Towse, 2006). Currently, credibility is largely
based on reach and total market or audience size, which gives value and recognition to creators
17

who amass large social media followings, generate multitudinous views on streaming platforms,
and get the kinds of impressions that were previously only collected by marketing and
advertising experts (Clark, 2021; Ferrari, 2020). Credibility in the future may exist on verifiable
proof of experience and expertise, including reputation based on work outputs, quality of ideas,
and peer review accountability, such as collaboration success and execution of original creative
project track records (Cadigan, 2021; Duplass & Duplass, 2018).
A historical perspective parallel to current data tracking gaps in indie film occurred in
the music industry when the decision making was similarly without intentional data tracking.
According to Thompson (2021), the globally recognized U.S.-based Billboard Top 100 charts in
the music industry were most impacted in 1991, when, for the first time, Nielson’s stopped using
human reporting on the best-performing records and instead switched to reporting quantifiable
data from the cash registers to determine the top of the charts. This may have been an example of
adaptive technology and timing that Diamandis (2012) reports are critical aspects of effective
innovation. Immediately, based on this tracking in 1991, for the Billboard Top 100, the all-
White-male American rock band R.E.M.’s, Out of Time was replaced by the N.W.A. album
Niggaz 4 Life, and instantly, by using more informed data tracking, representation mattered in a
more clear and more profoundly economic manner. This historical technological advance in data
tracking shifted to establish the importance of quantifiable data in relation to talent discovery,
accountability, and access in the entertainment industry. This historical reference in a parallel
aspect of media and entertainment is referenced to highlight the importance of data tracking to
make intentional and informed decisions.
There is often more to the numbers of entrepreneurial success than meets the eye (Apple,
2020; Spigel, 2020). There is an aspect of talent value understood herein that relates to
18

measuring the mass below the surface of an iceberg. Understanding the mass below the surface
may consist of several variables, and possibly these variables are new variables and alternative
data points than previously acknowledged. It is here that this research explored what may be
referred to as head, heart, and hustle as alternative methods and metrics to valuate creators based
on existing research by Duckworth (2016), Dweck (2015), LaPorte (2017), and Mehta (2017).
The theme of valuing talent on alternative means across industries is embedded in the works of
Apple (2020), Cadigan (2021), Mulcahy (2013), and Spigel (2020). If the entertainment industry
only focuses on the existing valuations, which are honing in on calculating the tips of the
icebergs, the current tools, resources, databases, and algorithms being developed for a creator's
viability for financial support may perpetuate inequity of opportunity (Noble, 2018). This
research intended to explore alternative valuations below the surface, inviting more equitable
access.
Why the Entertainment Industry
Content creators and independent filmmakers in entertainment and media are a global
talent workforce recognized beyond the gig economy (Mulcahy, 2013). Exploring existing
systems and supporting the innovation and evolution of practices to achieve both purpose and
profit, the essence of the economics of mutuality (Roche & Jakub, 2017) may reduce the risks
and limit liabilities for investors in creative talent. The study hoped to shed light on emerging
data that purports that diversity as siloed initiatives for underrepresented creators does not propel
change among those at the decision-making tables (Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019). The literature
examined covers traditional film investment, organizational change models, the creative
destruction landscape of film industry innovation, competency models of filmmaking talent, and
the business of diversity.
19

Context and Background of the Problem
Current conditions in entertainment exhibit poor business practices and lower potential
return on investment (Follows, 2022; Page, 2015). According to the latest data from Follows
(2022), entertainment studios are losing a reported 46% on their film investments, while
independent films are losing 52%. While independent film production is riskier, might there be a
way to improve returns across the board? As the researcher, I will also reflect on positions I have
held in the industry to better evaluate my positionality, including bias and assumptions in
conducting the research (Mertens, 2010).
Purpose of the Project
This study explored how leading industry executives and or investors in independent film
make investment decisions regarding emerging filmmaker talent discovery opportunities. It also
sought information from filmmakers themselves regarding what they believe is most beneficial
to them in accessing future investment opportunities. The study then provides recommendations
for bridging the disconnect between the two study populations and stakeholder groups. The
research is inspired by existing research, literature, industry trade reporting, and observable
disconnects between independent filmmakers and the industry executives and investors who
have the capacity to create opportunity for them in the entertainment industry. Understanding
that many existing current valuation formats for talent discovery of independent filmmakers
focus on established talent (Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Eberhardt, 2020; Team Slated, 2016),
which further amplifies the importance of exploring alternative ways to implement more
equitable talent discovery practices for emerging talent discovery within independent film and
the industry at large. More equitable access may be possible through evolved talent discovery
20

practices (Donner, 2015; Gidley et al., 2010; Muralidhar, 2019) with a financial engineering
approach (Beaumont, 2004; Chen, 2022) to alternative value metrics.
Research Questions
A mixed-methods approach was employed in this study. In the quantitative portion of the
study, the goal was to collect data reflecting the independent filmmakers represented across
global diasporas (Cohen, 2022) to understand more about their work as they seek approval,
validation, tools, and resources for support and financing. A great effort was made to hear from
content creators and independent filmmakers across continents. This quantitative research was
utilized to get a broader understanding of the landscape and efforts of independent filmmakers.
Qualitative research was explored with industry professionals and film investment decision-
makers. To better understand the practices of the industry professionals and decision makers, the
research used snowball sampling (Goodman, 1961), including getting referrals from
interviewees. There were a few formative questions to understand the context, practice, and
respective tools being used by investors toward their funding opportunities provided for talent
discovery and creators’ original intellectual property projects.
The research questions were developed from the research of Dweck (2015) regarding
growth mindset, herein examined as the head factor in the phenomenon under review. Secondly,
the work of Duckworth (2009) regarding grit informed the data analysis regarding heart. Lastly,
the analysis regarding hustle was guided by the research of LaPorte (2017) and Mehta (2017)
regarding how hustle is exhibited through effort, experience, and habits (Apple, 2020) to
establish a creative career trajectory. Three research questions guided this study:
1. How or where do industry professionals and/or investors find independent filmmakers
for potential collaboration on projects in the under $10M budget range?
21

2. What characteristics of these independent filmmakers do industry professionals
and/or investors value most?
3. What experience are industry professionals and/or investors looking for when it
comes to identifying early career talent to collaborate with?
These questions were explored via interviews with established filmmakers, entertainment
industry executives, film investors, and industry decision-makers, as well as via a survey of
emerging filmmakers. This orthogonal approach allowed for a narrative that compared and
contrasted the results between the qualitative and quantitative findings.
Importance of the Study
This research addressed global access for early career creatives based on data that is
considered value-based metrics currently used in the entertainment industry. Additionally, the
research explored the potential for improving returns on independent film investment based on
current independent film investors’ strategies. The aim herein was to provide practical insights to
propel innovation with intention and clear strategic goals for addressing abundance in the
entertainment industry on independent film investments for early career content creators and
filmmakers working in the under $10 million U.S. dollar budget space of independent film
within the entertainment industry (Apple, 2020; Follows, 2020; Kiuyi, 2021). Abundance, for the
purpose of this research, is the understanding that everyone wins, which is reflected in the
research and writings of Diamandis (2017) and Mayers and Roche (2019), as well as Elkington
(2020), who refers it to regenerative capitalism. This understanding of abundance is also
conceptually the result of Shumpeter’s creative destruction model, although not the most
commonly used reference. When Schumpeter’s (1942) work is applied to technology, there is no
longer a need to burn the house down; rather, adaptive technologies become interoperable, and
22

advances can be made with a win-win approach (Diamandis, 2017) where both stakeholder
groups addressed in this research benefit. Exploring the core systemic barriers between the two
groups invites inspiration to address foundational change to make long-lasting improvements.
With a solid vision and mission, this study hoped to provide data that could help build more
detailed strategic plans with more precise and measurable actions that could encourage a culture
of change within and around the entertainment industry, ultimately addressing equitable access
for creators as well as reducing risk and limiting liability for investors in independent film.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The literature review explores data with a foundation in four following theoretical
frameworks. Creative destruction and Schumpeter’s (1942) theories on innovation describe
entrepreneurship as reorganizing and restructuring innovations to create new and advanced
ventures. Competency modeling rates skills as values to give data points to each respective
value. Human capital is applied throughout the literature review as a means to examine the value
cultivated through the filmmaker’s respective and personal hustle. Bronfenbrenner’s (2005)
Ecological Systems theory is used as a basic framework for understanding relationships from the
individual to the societal, with facets that interplay at all levels and the interconnectedness that
influences all as it relates to the independent film industry at large and its relationship to the
entertainment and media landscape.
Definitions
Access: the opportunities and means of approaching the entertainment industry from
outside and unknown talent.
Algorithm: the data set of rules that are used to solve problems; herein, the data used to
determine a filmmaker’s viability in the marketplace based on past work and box office success.
23

Box office: the term used to define the commercial and global market success of a film.
Consumer: also known as the audience.
Content herein refers to all forms of media that can be distributed, from small forms and
short films to major motion pictures and everything in between.
Content creator: the creators of all forms of media that can be shared, distributed, and
monetized.
Creative destruction: the deconstructing and dismantling of existing practices to make
way for more innovative practices.
Creative economy: Creativity increases an idea’s value; herein, the artists, filmmakers,
and industry professionals who do this work as a means of livelihood.
Creator economy: the artists who contribute to content as a means of income to support
their livelihood.
Decision-maker: industry professionals who often have the final say in film venture
decisions; often refers to acquisitions and distributor professionals as well as investors,
executives at studios, and streaming platforms.
Diversity initiative refers to industry initiatives that are being supported to generate more
access and inclusion in the entertainment industry.
Ecosystem: a complex network; herein refers to the multifaceted nature of the
entertainment industry and all the contributing factors to a filmmaker’s success.
Efficacy: the ability to produce a desired outcome or result.
Independent filmmakers: defined as individual content creators who individually identify
as being in the early stages of their creative career as a filmmaker or work outside of the major
studio model.
24

Entertainment industry refers to the big picture conceptually; the overarching layers from
individual to film as products that make their way to audiences/consumers around the world.
Film development: in relation to the initial development of an idea or concept to
treatment, script, and development tools, like pitch deck and concept bible, to further production.
Film festival: over 1000 events around the world, ranging from small regional
celebrations of independent film to major networking and media marketplace conferences.
Film finance: capital used for film and media content.
Filmmaker: any creator of film and media content.
Independent film: one layer of the entertainment industry, but also a complex part of the
overall entertainment industry. Most films are made independently, which means outside the
studio system, and they will eventually get purchased by or acquired by a studio/distributor.
Intellectual property: the concept or idea originated by the creator that is generally
intended for future production and potential franchise.
Investor: for the purpose of this research, individuals and/or individuals who represent
groups that invest capital in independent film.
Liability: In the entertainment industry, this could refer to any number of reasons that
may incite a higher risk or potential loss of investment, from an inability to perform or complete
a project, lack of experience, lack of accountability, etc.
Media ecosystem includes all aspects of development, production, and distribution from
education, streaming platforms, and additional outlets that could generate sales and recoup costs.
Pipeline: As a step-by-step process to enter into a career in filmmaking, this manifests as
steps to becoming a professional filmmaker or a decision-maker in the entertainment industry.
Produce: producing films and/or creative media content.
25

Programming generally refers to the selection of films from film festivals to distribution
outlets.
Recruitment: the selection of filmmaking talent within the entertainment industry.
Regenerative: the ability for a practice to not only gain enough support to continue but
also build momentum to provide additional support; in this case, to gain momentum to support
more creatives, filmmakers, and artists, often by generating more return on investment that
would be required to just maintain.
Retention: the continual hiring of talent on creative projects or the hiring of industry
professionals within the studio or full-time production space.
Rethink: to reconsider traditional systemic practices or industry standards and protocols.
Return on investment: often referred to as a waterfall in film and media.
Status quo: practices of the entertainment industry that have established themselves as
normative but may not be based on data or research.
Sustainable: the ability for specific practices to continue and support themselves in this
manner or generate enough support to continue on in a similar fashion.
Systemic practice: the practices and protocols that have been established as to how the
entertainment industry works, largely referring to talent development; herein, practices from
education, development, and assessment processes of talent that are currently utilized in the
entertainment industry.
Talent agency: industry agencies that select top performers and provide talent for future
opportunities.
26

Talent development: includes formal and informal education and experience exposure for
filmmaking talent, often overseen by film schools and nonprofit organizations from Berlin to
Sundance.
Under-represented filmmakers, according to entertainment industry research based on
literature and data, refer to everyone who does not identify as a White male.
Valuation: how the industry estimates the worth of a filmmaker and/or their original
intellectual property in the global marketplace.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One provides a holistic overview of the intent of this research. It includes some
personal descriptions of myself as a researcher and some of my education, experience, and
exposure in the industry that provide fuel to pursue this research. Chapter Two describes the
current conversations that inspired this research. Additionally, Chapter Two provides an
overview of existing research and expands on current influences. There are ideas founded on
classic theory, such as thinkers who have influenced the last century of business and economics,
and ideas that have been interwoven with some current evangelists in the field of independent
film, as well as theorists on entrepreneurship, the talent workforce, and business practice in
general. Chapter Three describes the methods for conducting this research to explore the thinking
of independent filmmakers and uncover some of the more consistent thinking and systemic
practices that act as barriers for independent filmmakers in the industry to access opportunities
for independent film investment. Chapter Four covers the findings and results of the survey and
interviews that allowed for comparing the disparate findings. Chapter Five includes all of the
recommendations based on the research study and looks toward future forward research and best
practices, including insights gained herein.
27

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The global economy is, in many ways, defined by its creative economy (Deloitte, 2021;
Kituyi, 2021). Foundationally, it must be established that the economic framework for which we
are defining this research is based on a capitalistic and hierarchical framework and paradigms
(Thomas, 2009) and is similar to the academic structure by which this research was conducted,
thus inviting the alternative lens on how we might approach and address economic benefit both
ethically and holistically (Lincoln & Guba, 2005; Perlas, 2003) as a great deal of importance.
Fundamentally, this research sought to find more connections and raise the level of importance
of alternative data that may be potentially outside the existing structure and economic
frameworks that currently define the entertainment industry.
Considering that there are various ways and evolving understandings of economic
benefit, as defined by Elkington (2020) and Mayers and Roche (2019), it is imperative to note
that this research speaks to both the sheer economic benefit from a financial returns perspective
as well as an elevated understanding of both purpose and profit and how it relates to access and
inclusion in the marketplace (Elkington, 2020; Mayers & Roche, 2019; Page, 2017). The
literature and research for this proposed understanding of value and values are defined within
paradigms that are largely defined with little acknowledgement of indigenous perspectives of
value chains and their respective data metrics (Unger, 2014; Yunkaporta, 2020), many of which
may understand and do better to explain the need to support artists and creators from alternative
perspectives. Additionally, the data available on the entertainment industry and the entertainment
marketplace are also largely referenced from the minority world and are offered from a White-
Euro-American lens.
28

Acknowledging this, the research does make an effort to be inclusive with the data
available. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the Motion Picture
Association acknowledge that the creative industries influence the global economy by weaving
together human creativity, ideas, intellectual property (IP), knowledge, and technology, similar
to the collaboration theories by DeFillippi et al. (2009) and the entrepreneurial ecosystem
theories of Spigel (2020). Content creators exist at this intersection, adding value and products to
the global market. The connection between valuation processes for investment in content and
how the content creator talent is recruited, developed, and retained sheds light on many existing
systemic barriers in the entertainment industry.
The literature encourages exploring talent, for the purposes of this research, through the
framework of an alternative creator competency model to begin to develop valuation frameworks
for systemic best practices in independent film talent discovery that may benefit the various
layers of the entertainment industry structures at large. At present, credibility for an independent
filmmaker relies on whether you’ve done something before, undermining the hustling below the
surface of success (Cadigan, 2021; Clark, 2021). According to Palazzoli (1978), equitable
epistemology allows one to consider how they know, based on alternative information, that
alternative frameworks could create opportunities for those who do not currently get an
opportunity to try out in the entertainment industry. Applying cybernetic epistemology and
exploring the interconnectedness of the creator’s competency (Keeney, 2017) could encourage
the existing system to accept that they may never have a complete understanding or absolute
ability to predict outcomes in this entertainment industry universe. However, they could expand
existing structures of knowing for improved outcomes that could address more equitable
opportunities for talent, as well as improve potential profit margins (Elkington, 2020).
29

The Economy of the Entertainment Industry
According to the seminal work of Schumpeter (1942), the entertainment industry is an
active landscape of what their research calls creative destruction. The constant flow of new
innovation and consistently evolving iterations of business processes is standard practice in
entertainment as the very industry is built on technological advances at all levels, from
development, manufacturing, and production to content distribution. Shumpeter’s theoretical
models are at play at all levels of the entertainment industry on a day-to-day basis. Now, add
those to Diamandis’s (2017) theories of technological advances for abundance and prosperity
with technological interoperability, and you have an evolutionary hotbed for potential growth
and prosperous benefit for all; here, the literature presents the potential for content creators and
independent filmmakers as well as for the industry professionals and investors who support the
creators. The need is to provide the data necessary to connect these two stakeholder groups in
their own version of interoperability for more successful outcomes.
Content creators are effective entrepreneurs who combine the ideation of their original
intellectual property, which could be considered their inspiration (Gilbert, 2016), with
development and distribution technologies to share their content via an evolving media landscape
(Aliloupour, 2016; Hennig-Thurau & Houston, 2019; Mahanti, 2014; McPhillips & Merlo,
2008). The creators of content are king, and their content is the new currency (Weprin, 2021;
Yuan, 2020). Schumpeter’s foundational research on the nature of competing markets sets a
framework to explore individual content creators as unique entrepreneurs who explore strategies
for success in the competitive global marketplace. The literature on the entrepreneurial content
creator (Schumpeter, 1942; Spigel, 2020) reflects the potential for purpose, profit, and elevated
sustainability through regenerative capitalism (Elkington, 2020; Heller, 2017). Elkington, a
30

forefather of sustainability, steps back from his own triple-bottom-line theories developed in
1994 and deconstructs some previously overlooked elements that lack lasting support for
sustainability. Elkington’s (2020) and Spigel’s (2020) recent theories on improving ROI through
innovation further connect the interdependent relationship necessary between elements such as
talent discovery processes and content creation in the film, media, and entertainment industry.
The entertainment industry is one of the largest economies in the world at over $2 trillion
annually (Statista, n.d.; Stein, 2009; Vogel, 2015) and is expected to grow at a rate of 10.4% to
$6.7 trillion by 2030 (Statista, n.d.). The U.S. entertainment and media industry adds $717
billion to the national economy (Firsthand, n.d.). It is reported that 50 million people worldwide
identify as content creators (Koetsier, 2020; Yuan, 2020), which can range from influencers to
industry professionals (Yuan, 2020). The Motion Picture Association reports up to 3 million
people who work professionally in the film industry, with 850,000 self-identifying as
independent filmmakers who are actively submitting projects to some 10,000 unique global film
festivals (FilmFreeway, n.d.) annually. Yuan’s (2020) research highlights that two million of
these content creators are professionals, making their sole wages from content, leaving over 44
million potential content creators around the world with room for economic growth. Regardless
of the tool used to measure the industry (whether it is the workforce, the productions, content’s
international distribution, streaming services, or box office revenue), media and entertainment
have a substantial impact on the global economy (Aliloupour, 2016).
Content Creators As Talent Workforce
The barriers in the entertainment industry for filmmakers and content creators are
analogous to the systemic issues in the global talent workforce (Cadigan, 2021). Traditional
talent recruitment, development, and retention approaches are outpaced by technological
31

advances and improved business practices (Cadigan, 2021; Diamandis & Kotler, 2012;
Redmond, 2021). Exponential growth across sectors is changing the ways of engaging with the
workforce (Cadigan, 2021; Diamandis & Kotler, 2012; Redmond, 2021). Organizations and
industries are reimagining policies and practices (Grant, 2021). Talent must find new and
meaningful ways to be seen, heard, and valued (Clark, 2021; Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Thacker,
2016). Moreover, global marketplace advances directly affect the entertainment industry, leading
to underperformance in independent film investment that is ripe for creative destruction and open
to improved collaboration models across sectors of the industry (DeFillippi et al., 2009; Follows,
2016; Gupta, 2020; Moore, 2019; Spigel, 2020). Schumpeter (1942) coined the phrase creative
destruction to describe the innovative process an entrepreneur uses when developing something
new, often destabilizing old ways (Aghion et al., 2020). Further, Schumpeter’s research and
explanation of the nature of competition directly relate to both the current growth and the
barriers that limit profit potential in the entertainment industry (Aghion et al., 2020).
Understanding how the independent film industry works as a training ground and
production mill within the entertainment industry at large is important (Eddy & Eddy, 2021;
Ferrari, 2020). Most films are developed and produced in the independent film sector (Botto,
2018). A few will be distributed within the larger entertainment industry (Bourdages, 2010;
Follows, 2018), but many, even most of those produced, will never be seen (Bourdages, 2015;
Ferrari, 2020). As few as 4,000 and as many as 20,000 films are produced each year
(FilmFreeway, n.d.; IMDb, 2021; The Numbers, n.d.). The studio sector has released
approximately 700 films per year since 2011 (The Numbers, n.d.). This research focuses on the
talent workforce behind the making of these independent films. These filmmakers are, in many
32

ways, the collective power behind the creator economy, and these creators are entrepreneurs in
both theory and practice (Bhargava, 2021; Bourdages, 2015; Deloitte, 2021; Ferrari, 2020).
Entrepreneurship
Independent filmmakers are content creators, entrepreneurs, and small business leaders
(Gonzalez, 2012; Spigel, 2020). Each independent film is, in effect, a small business (Eddy &
Eddy, 2021; Ferrari, 2020; Taylor, 2010). When exploring aspects of a successful start-up and
small business, each has an effect on the whole (Eddy & Eddy, 2021; Ferrari, 2020; Spigel,
2020). And according to Fuller (2003) and Spigel (2020), understanding the individual behind a
small business is the best way to evaluate its potential success. These components directly relate
to profits and losses (Eddy & Eddy, 2021; Kituyi, 2021). Still, the independent film industry has
undervalued its talent workforce (Cadigan, 2021; Duplass & Duplass, 2018). As Spigel (2020)
described, the entrepreneur is not always valued for collaborative relationships. The filmmakers
and content creators who, in many ways, drive the economy are not recognized until they
become big business (Duplass, 2021; Ferrari, 2020). Simply, the industry at large is not
intentionally evaluating the content creators to better determine their market potential (Epstein,
2021; Fuller, 2003).
According to Wheelan (2019), market economics, built out of a capitalistic framework,
can only give back what is asked of it. Because the market collects data only on top-tier box
office results and tracks the highest-grossing status, the projections and speculations are then
ultimately based on an overview of the highest level of reporting. Therefore, market economics
gives a clear understanding of what is happening at the highest level; the system reports and
perpetuates the existing status quo (Eddy & Eddy, 2021). For example, Disney and Netflix may
pay for the majority of incoming data, leaving independent films being produced on a budget of
33

less than $10 million as simply not a priority or concern in regard to their data or profit and loss
reporting (J. D., personal communication, February 2020; J. N., personal communication, 2020).
Simply, this creates a situation where the leading industry tools and resources do not track the
data, the hustle essentially, of the majority of independent filmmakers (Mehta, 2015; Mulcahy,
2016), those producing up to 85.1% or 17,020 (Follows, 2022) films made annually. Thereby,
there is no way to predict outcomes in the smaller financial space (Wheelan, 2019) of
independent filmmaking, the same space where the majority of films in the industry are made.
This allows and even invites for creative destruction and improved innovation techniques to use
technological advances (Diamandis, 2015) to determine the value of independent filmmakers’
and content creators’ unique and individual talents to increase profit margins on content creation
and limit liability in the investment of original intellectual property in the under $10 million
window. Creators are contract workers at the heart of the gig economy, so it is fundamentally
important to rethink how they are valued in the entertainment workforce landscape (Cadigan,
2021; Epstein, 2021; Grant, 2021; Mulcahy, 2016; Schram, 2020; Sundararajan, 2017). This
entrepreneurial value relates to and is interconnected with traditional norms of recruitment,
development, and retention in the workforce (Cadigan, 2021; Spigel, 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on what it takes for individuals to make a living
and the role of the gig and creators in a thriving economy (Cadigan, 2021; Grant, 2021;
Mulcahy, 2016). The struggle remains between the content creators and the companies who used
to act as intermediaries (Ferrari, 2020). Various startups like KARAT and FilmHedge that extend
credit to creators according to their follower reach, distribution agreements, and alternative
values have begun to offer insight into alternative valuations (Gupta, 2020). However, similar
and newer tools such as Largo and Cinelytic remain embedded in reorganizing ways to evaluate
34

top-tier data metrics. It becomes increasingly important to understand how talent in the gig and
creator economy can increase return on investment by rethinking original entertainment
productions for investors by developing their original intellectual property and projects
(Bhargava, 2021; Deloitte, 2021; Eddy & Eddy, 2021; Grant, 2021).
The content creators and film and media makers and their relationship to
entrepreneurship practices help define the work behind their productions. Each independent film
is a small start-up business. Budget sizes, like small businesses, can range anywhere from $1,000
to $3 million (Bourdages, 2015; Duplass & Duplass, 2018), yet there is still little information on
anything with a budget of less than $10 million U.S. dollars (Bourdages, 2015). The content
creators’ career trajectories and ability to produce ongoing projects are often disconnected from
how many start-ups have succeeded (Eddy & Eddy, 2021). Duplass and Duplass (2018)
explained that, while many people wish to join the work of an independent content creator, that
creator is not allowed to make small business decisions. Simply, a filmmaker may have produced
multiple films at a low cost but remain unknown and may be considered too high a risk for future
investment (Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Eddy & Eddy, 2021).
Through the process of hustling, filmmakers also develop and expand their human and
social capital, an additional quality that is often undervalued (Botto, 2018; Mehta, 2017;
Mulcahy, 2016). They may have paid their investors back and even seen a favorable return on
investment, but they must begin anew with each new independent film (Bourdages, 2015;
Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Eddy & Eddy, 2021; Ferrari, 2020; Taylor, 2010). This is due in large
part to the entertainment industry having little to no valuation models to acknowledge their
previous work (Fuller, 2003) and lacking the agility to rethink (Grant, 2021) how business is
done, focusing instead on the status quo (Eddy & Eddy, 2021). Additionally, with every effort
35

and step towards their respective hustle, independent filmmakers are building their invaluable
institutional knowledge (Hillman, 2017; Mehta, 2017) that allows them to have an innate sense
and understanding of how the entertainment industry works in regard to processes and protocols.
The creators who are doing the work are building their wherewithal, growing their foundational
understanding, and ever increasing their network.
The Content Creator’s Human and Social Capital
The valuation of a content creator’s worth is evolving with the market landscape
(Epstein, 2021). Social entrepreneurship is a growing responsibility for content creators (Ferrari,
2021). The filmmaker is expected to be building their human and social capital at every turn of
their career. Expectations include actively pursuing development programs that include labs,
fellowships, development programs, diversity initiatives, writer workshops, shadowing
programs, internships, and volunteering on other creators’ projects. All of this work falls under
the category referred to herein as the hustle (Mehta, 2017) and, from a business framework, is
the groundwork for institutional knowledge (Hillman, 2017) when it comes to how to make
things happen in the industry. The content creators’ connections and the network they are
building are essentially their human and social interoperability as much as it is their future
potential viability and credibility in the entertainment industry. The research suggests that it is as
important whom the filmmaker knows as it is who knows of them (Ferrari, 2020).
The Status Quo of Underperformance
According to Follows (2016), profit can be defined differently in the entertainment
business from one project to another. The data and reporting of entertainment are a literal
euphemism, often called Hollywood accounting (Bourdages, 2015). The industry reports profits
and losses in various ways. Theatrical contracts, distribution deals, and producer and talent
36

contracts all have space to be unique and interconnected to aspects of how and where the film
was released, international sales, cooperation with outside entities, back-end deals, first-in deals,
and a myriad of other reporting exceptions (Aliloupour, 2016; Bourdages, 2015; Taylor, 2010).
The traditional studio film model creates a film for $100 million, which can earn a return
of up to $1 billion (Bourdages, 2015). Thus, executives are reluctant to focus on films in the
under $3 million budget range, as statistically, films in this range have a 51% chance of losing
money (Follows, 2018). Leaning into the research of agile thinking regarding film production,
Eddy and Eddy (2021) referred to wider industries like manufacturing, software development,
and start-ups. Their research explored ideas or advances in an industry surrounded by technical
advances for production while underperforming due to uncertainty and risk (Bourdages, 2015;
Eddy & Eddy, 2021). Focusing on current investment models in talent and the funding
relationship to developing original intellectual property and projects, Mulcahy (as cited in Clark,
2015) reported on the common myths, inefficiencies, and underperformance of venture
capitalists. One myth was that bigger is better, yet once a small, up-and-coming studio makes a
large return on a feature film, it rarely goes back to the small space (B. E. & C. S., personal
communication, February 2020) and, in many ways, increases their losses (Follows, 2016).
Exploring Independent Film Investment Behavior
According to the research, there are pragmatic steps to investing in independent films
(Duplass, 2018; Ferrari, 2020; Follows, 2018; Moore, 2019; Taylor, 2010). Investing is
straightforward, but obtaining a return on investment is complicated (Eddy & Eddy, 2021;
Vogel, 2015). There are a number of technologies currently being developed to address the
return on investment (Gupta, 2020; Vogel, 2015). However, the data on investment trends and
37

behavior lead to questions regarding who is pursuing best practices (Hanauer, 2019; Horn &
Bushman, 2021).
Reimagining Talent Valuation Models
Grant’s (2021) research on new ways of thinking and improving existing models directly
applies to the entertainment industry. Considering the filmmaker as an entrepreneur (Ferrari,
2020; Spigel, 2020) and Cadigan’s (2021) approach to valuing the workforce for their effort and
habitual hustle (Ferrari, 2020; Mehta, 2017), it is possible to create a valuation model that
acknowledges a potential trajectory (Diamandis & Kolter, 2015). According to Moore (2019),
most films lose money, as much as 80%. As Clark (2021) noted, in any other industry, this
would be unacceptable and considered poor business practice. Mulcahy (2013) brought light to
the underperformance of venture capital and highlighted the status-quo practices in an
underperforming industry. Gupta (2020) created a predictive AI model for determining a film’s
success based on top-tier data. Ferrari (2020) described an early relativity media model on
predictions.
However, while all of these data options serve to reorganize top-level performers, there is
less performative review data to connect the available research on start-up entrepreneurs (Spigel,
2020), their successes (Bourdages, 2015), or their respective hustle (Ferrari, 2020; Mehta, 2017).
There is expectedly less research available or available data written on the value of the creator’s
individual hustle, which is the foundation of the work that may be a more effective predictor of
success. The entertainment industry needs to effectively track smaller success, considerable hits-
at-base, which Bourdages (2015) confirmed is imperative to financial success in independent
film.

38

The Sum of the Parts
The interconnectedness of filmmaking teams is indicative of the nature of filmmaking
(Eddy & Eddy, 2021), and this symbiotic relationship can be explored as an entrepreneurial
ecosystem (DeFillippi et al., 2009; Spigel, 2020), similar to a cybernetic theory approach
(Keeney, 2017). The many talented individuals on the team make the project a potential success
(Gladwell, 2008) because filmmaking is collaborative, like entrepreneurial efforts. Duplass and
Duplass (2018) expanded on the importance of small industry wins in a company’s successful
creative journey, as in the case of the approximately 20,000 aforementioned independent films
produced annually. These films are estimated to have budgets under $10 million U.S. dollars.
The data reveals that as many as 51% of these films will lose money (Follows, 2018), so
something needs to be done in regard to data tracking from a creative destruction approach. How
can independent films be created intentionally with success in mind (Bourdages, 2015; Duplass
& Duplass, 2018; Ferrari, 2020)?
Exploring the gig economy research, it is possible to create a self-creation model from
content creators (Mulcahy, 2016; Schram, 2020; Sundararajan, 2017) that looks like a
competency model in the traditional talent workforce. In the niche of independent filmmakers,
this model requires approaching each aspect that contributes to the film, from development to
distribution (Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Eddy & Eddy, 2021; Ferrari, 2020; Hennig-Thurau &
Houston, 2019; Spigel, 2020). As the industry’s data is focused on the top level, the financial
focus is on the large successes. The people with the most hustle (Ferrari, 2020; Mehta, 2017)
may not show up on the algorithms currently used to create predictive models for potential
returns. This implies that the creators who may have the highest institutional knowledge
39

(Hillman, 2017; Mehat, 2017) may ultimately be the most reduced risk with expanded limited
liability, yet they may never populate in current data tracking as viable options.
Talent Discovery As Recruitment
An agent at a top talent firm stated in response to this research, “The current system [for
talent identification] allows the cream to rise to the top” (C. U., personal communication,
February 2020). Schumpeter’s creative destruction theory challenges this understanding that the
existing system is best because of its structure (Aghion & Howitt, 1992). This, however, denies
the fact that the entertainment industry is fast approaching technological advances that often
outpace the systems that determine its worth (Diamandis, 2017). The narrative perpetuated with
such a notion ultimately works to discover existing known talent already established within the
system. This mise-en-scène perpetuates the myth of meritocracy (Hunt, Ramon & Shim, 2019;
McNamee & Miller, 2018). The industry does not formally track or recognize at scale the work
creative individuals are doing to hustle (Mehta, 2015) in an attempt to gain recognition. Rather,
the barriers to being considered for representation include access to private initial investment
funds or personal connections (De Vany, 2003; Ferrari, 2020). Barriers related to financial,
human, and social capital further separate the industry from equitable access (Regev, 2018).
Points of entry do exist, however. There are accessible technological advances that can help to
build an effective point of entry to improve independent film’s return on investment. Research
suggests that with fair and equitable access, the industry would address inclusion in recruitment,
development, and retention (Cadigan, 2021; Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019).
The Cost of Development, The Algorithm Excuse
The financial support for developing and supporting independent filmmakers is
predominantly philanthropy or an unstructured and often unreliable high-risk investment (Davis,
40

2018; Haine & Edelman, 2020; Hunt et al., 2020). When the database metrics and proposed
valuation algorithms currently used in film investment are based on box office data that
showcase established filmmakers (De Vany, 2003; World Economic Forum, 2021), the
independent filmmaker has little opportunity to prove their potential worth (Cadigan, 2021;
Noble, 2018). Connections matter (Spigel, 2020), and as Sacks (2015) noted, gatekeeping is
apparent at all levels and reinforced by current structural systems. Mehta (2017) added that the
ability to pull through the expected hustle is weighted by socioeconomic opportunity and
connections, also known as human and social capital. Haine and Edelman (2020) explored
dependence on non-profit organizations like the prestigious Sundance Institute and found that
beyond the non-profits, there is no real investment in content creator development, which was
confirmed by Michelle Satter in her interview with them at Sundance Institute. Film-based non-
profits are largely responsible for developing independent filmmakers, while the industry relies
on box office data (Hunt et al., 2020) to be available before the early career creators are eligible
for larger opportunities. Hunt et al. (2020) documented the degree to which studios and private
investors rarely back independent and diverse filmmakers. This data confirmed that studios lack
investment opportunities for diverse independent filmmakers (Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019).
Because algorithms base future prospects on past box office data, there is an
underrepresentation of minority filmmakers, which further increases the gap between emerging
and established independent filmmakers who are potentially viable for future opportunities and
support. According to Smith et al. (2019), of the most recent 1,200 animated and live-action
films, only 5% of animations and 1% of live-action films employed a female of color as
producer. Yet, across the top film schools, 65% of undergraduates and half of graduate students
are female (Smith et al., 2019). Furthermore, Smith et al. noted that two out of three early-career
41

women of color they interviewed referenced tokenism for their acceptance and/or exclusion on
projects. Additionally, barriers to access and inclusion are compounded at every level, from
education and development to production and executive career tracks (Gates, 2019; Smith &
Choueiti, 2013). This inequity further amplifies the need for more equitable access on the ground
floor of talent tracking metrics for future opportunities.
The Growth Potential
The traditional studio model of film finance (Cones, 2013) is at odds with technological
advances in the marketplace (Diamandis & Kotler, 2020). As the model was greatly impacted by
COVID-19, when theaters went dark in 2020, the proposed algorithmic valuation systems and
data tracking metrics became predictions on past top-tier success data only. The industry
essentially paused in regard to its traditional data and scorekeeping, as the metrics themselves
became less viable and alternative means to recordkeeping of processes and practices were being
rewritten in real time. Despite the technological advances, Taylor (2010) compares the
independent film finance model (Cones, 2008, 2013) to real estate because of its various stages
of funding. When the risk is greater, the return can be exponentially higher than expected
(Bourdages, 2015). Taylor (2010) reported that a best-case scenario for an independent
filmmaker is to make three dollars for every dollar spent. Taylor compares the work of a
filmmaker to a food chain with levels and siloing akin to a caste system. According to Taylor, a
good business plan is key, which is also a recommendation provided by Duplass and Duplass
(2021) and Ferrari (2020).
The Cost Loss of Inequitable Representation
Eberhardt (2020) explained the complexity of systemic issues deeply rooted in business
practices. Page’s (2017) work supports diversity’s role in higher returns on investment in
42

business. Hanauer (2019) also affirmed that inclusion promotes growth. In 2021, Forbes noted
the entertainment industry lost $10 billion due singularly to its lack of diverse voices
(Porterfield, 2021).
Previous research found that the lack of investment for independent filmmakers
reinforces inequitable representation of underrepresented groups, including women, lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transexual, queer, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA+), and Black, Indigenous, and people
of color (BIPOC; Davis, 2018; Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019; Hunt et al., 2020; Smith &
Choueiti, 2013). However, box office data and consumer reports confirm that films by these
groups outperform in ticket sales in the U.S. and internationally (Follows, 2018; Hunt et al.,
2020). Research suggests investing in independent filmmakers would address inclusivity and
representation and could increase profitability. Atcheson (2018) and Page (2017) stated that
greater representation would ultimately be better business. Based on the research findings, it may
be helpful to create tangible improvements by inviting early-career creatives to an early career
data tracking metrics that may increase access and representation by more creators earlier on,
better resembling the more equitable numbers in attendance in film schools and in the labs and
fellowships, possibly addressing the loss of representation.
The systemic issues that inhibit inclusion in the entertainment industry are complex,
layered, and compounded by long-standing legacy power structures (Hunt, Ramon, & Shim,
2019), much resembling the oversimplification of structures and capitalistic approaches. As
discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) continue, the language and definitions for
DEI become critical (Bogler, n.d.). To begin, Ahmed (2007) noted that a focus on diversity
continues to divide and reproduce inequitable systems. The entertainment industry refers to its
diversity initiatives as a positive evolution (Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019), but the literature does
43

not reflect systemic changes to the current imbalance (Bogler, n.d.; Hunt, Ramon, & Shim,
2019). Sherbin and Rashid (2017) defined the goal of DEI as inclusion, leaving the industry with
much to address for independent filmmakers, including acknowledgement of their early career
work, access to early investment, retention of underrepresented talent, and active engagement
opportunities that see them through to career filmmakers or career creative executives with
decision-making power (Horm, 2020; Hunt et al., 2020).
The literature revealed a number of barriers for independent filmmakers, from gaining
talent recognition to accessing industry financing (Davis, 2018; Hunt, Ramon, & Tran, 2019;
Mulhere, 2018; Smith & Choueiti, 2013; Smith et al., 2019). Key controversies lie in building a
new practice, while the industry has a proven record of perpetuating existing cycles (De Vany,
2003; Mulhere, 2018). Decision makers may prevent changes that might imply that they have not
been doing everything they could for inclusion already (McTaggart & O’Brien, 2020; Noble,
2018). The implications are greatly compounded when it comes to equitable access to funding
opportunities (Bogler, n.d.; Follows et al., 2016; Erbland, 2017; Wells, 2016). As film
investment methods are based on legacy power structures, hierarchical paradigms and capitalist
priorities, and box-office-based algorithms and metrics, most independent and diverse
filmmakers are invisible to decision makers (Haine & Edelman, 2020; Horn, 2020; Smith &
Choueiti, 2013). The lack of an investment structure designed for identifying and developing
talent earlier on in their career lends the entertainment industry to fail to provide financial
support for independent filmmakers, perpetuating its lack of equitable representation (McIntosh,
1988; Page, 2017).
When it comes to inclusivity and equity, the entertainment industry is making
improvements with regard to on-screen representation (Hunt et al., 2020) but lacks efforts behind
44

the camera (Smith & Choueiti, 2013; Hunt, Ramon, & Tran, 2019; Hunt et al., 2020). McIntosh
(1988) observed that White privilege perpetuates existing systems. According to Smith et al.
(2019), all groups cited in their research on animated films referred to the legacy of their industry
as the reason for the lack of inclusion, resembling a history of elitism. Analysis of the top 200
grossing theatrical releases in 2018 and 2019 (Hunt et al., 2020) revealed that audiences strongly
support films made by women and other minorities. Yet, according to this research, only 1.5 out
of 10 film directors are people of color, and another 1.5 out of 10 directors are female, with a
majority, 84.9% of all film directors being White. Hunt et al. (2020) reported that 91% of studio
film executives are White, and 82% are male. Among senior executives, 93% are White, and
80% are male. Smith and Choueiti (2013) analyzed the 250 top-grossing U.S. movies of 2011
and found that only 5% of directors, 14% of writers, and 25% of producers were female.
Moreover, when researching 120 top animated films and 100 episodes of television, Smith and
Choueiti (2013) found that only four women of color were directors, and all four were Asian.
Diversity Initiative Efforts
Hunt, Ramon, and Shim (2019) researched various ways in which the industry addresses
inequity by funding diversity practices and inclusivity methods. The research revealed that
investment in diversity initiatives is increasing and has become its own respective cottage
industry (Del Barco, 2018; Hunt, Ramon, & Shim., 2019). While cottage industries are generally
referred to as having smaller initial investments and fewer people involved than traditional
industries, Hunt et al. (2020) referred to these initiatives as cottage because they are siloed and
small-scale in relation to the studios’ traditional investment practices. Barriers continually
referenced in the research are the studios’ power structures, including decision makers who may
be interested in keeping the systems in place and unchanged (Atcheson, 2018).
45

Decision-Maker Barriers
The research suggests that current investment methods do not support female or diverse
filmmakers (Hunt, Ramon, & Tran, 2019). Furthermore, Sherbin and Rashid (2017) stated that
diversity in and of itself does not lead to inclusion (Del Barco, 2018). Smith and Choueiti (2013)
noted that traditional investment practices upheld by current power structures impede access for
women and minority filmmakers.
Wells (2016) found that studios are more likely to reinvest in male directors over female
directors, even after an initial box-office success. Davis (2018) expanded on this research by
studying the history of sophomore theatrical film releases. Davis reported that women directors,
when compared to men, are often expected to prove themselves to a higher standard of
profitability before they have access to investment. Per Mulhere (2018) and Clark (2021),
women often need to work harder to prove themselves in their industries. Meanwhile, male
directors often receive a studio investment opportunity after a single breakout Sundance film,
while women may go an average of 7 to 10 years before securing an investment for their
sophomore film (Davis, 2018). Because decision-makers’ practices leave little room for the
discovery of diverse independent talent, they perpetuate the predominance of White male
representation (Horn, 2020; Hunt et al., 2020; Mehta, 2017).
Investment Practices
The entertainment industry leans heavily into what McNamee and Miller (2018) called
the meritocracy myth, challenging the idea that working hard enough ensures an equal chance at
success. Mehta (2017) referred to this notion as the hustle required by those independent in the
industry. While the entertainment visage pushes to present itself as equitable, access to
investment contrasts this idea, along with the continual support of existing IP (Erbland, 2017;
46

Follows et al., 2016; Team Slated, 2016). Follows’ (2018) analysis of research on development
and finance trends among 2014 and 2015 U.S. and international theatrical releases found that
studios produced the highest budget films via their existing IP franchises and invested less in
original IP. Erbland (2017) found that 20 of the top 25 grossing films in 2016 were existing IP
franchises. Team Slated (2016) reported that studios are investment-driven toward building
franchises from previously established content and are less incentivized to invest in new or
independent filmmakers. Team Slated stated that the most reliable industry method used to
identify potential investment in both a filmmaker and IP is through their own existing valuation
algorithms based on prior success. As one former network president and Oscar winner shared in
response to this research development, “The only way this industry works is to look at what
made money last year; copy, paste, and repeat” (T. N., personal communication February 2020).
This cycle restricts the discovery of diverse independent filmmakers, leaving an inequitable
hustle only for those who can afford it (Mehta, 2017). The increasing data that the entertainment
industry exists in a pay-to-play model is counter to Page’s (2017) proposed improvements in
business models built out of more equitable systems.
While traditional investment does not support diverse independent talent, the non-profit
industry is developing unrepresented voices. Their diversity programs subdivide
underrepresented talent from the system by providing opportunity while reinforcing separation
(Ahmed, 2017; Del Barco, 2021a; Hunt, Ramon, and Tran, 2020). Intersectionality compounds
disparities for underrepresented talent within these divisions, as evidenced by these diversity
programs (Hunt et al., 2020). Hunt, Ramon, and Shim (2019) explored this philanthropic practice
of diversity initiatives and the lack of inclusion among the organizations and studios supporting
them. While providing limited access, these initiatives widen the gap for underrepresented voices
47

by reinforcing the myth of meritocracy (Hunt et al., 2020; McNamee & Miller, 2018; Sherbin &
Rashid, 2017). Hanauer (2019) explained that businesses can and must improve outcomes for all
stakeholders, including the workers behind the product.
According to a report by the World Economic Forum (2020), COVID-19 instigated a
watershed year for the entertainment industry. The halt to traditional industry practices shook the
industry’s foundation. It is reported in industry trades that entertainment was not agile, adaptable,
or quick enough to adapt to opportunities from a technology and/or talent workforce perspective
(Atcheson, 2018; Koetsier, 2020; Moore, 2019). These missed opportunities encourage creative,
positive, and profitable changes for existing systemic practices of talent discovery across the
entertainment industry. The economics that determine the value for independent content creators
and filmmaking talent could be used by industry professionals as a source of abundance.
Abundance, as defined by Diamandis and Kotler (2012), allows for multiple participating parties
to have exponential gains without the need for anyone participating to be at a loss, either
ethically or economically. According to this data, both purpose and profit can eliminate the zero-
sum game (Lelis, 2021; Patel et al., 2016) perspective.
Similarly, a zero-sum-game perspective requires a loser for another participant or
contributor to win. According to Diamandis and Kotler (2012), abundance is the theoretical
approach to business where continued innovation will create ways to solve previous challenges.
Unlike the zero-sum games mathematical theory, abundance challenges the idea that one side
must lose for the other to profit (Patel et al., 2016). It is here that financial engineering, as
described by Beaumont (2004) and Chen (2022), has the potential to innovate win-win scenarios
akin to Mayer and Roche’s (2021) economics of mutuality and Elkington’s (2020) regenerative
capitalism. In respect of this information, the winning parties would be both the independent film
48

investors as well as the individual filmmaking talent. Mayer and Roche (2021) expanded on the
above ideas by exploring what purpose and profit look like in real-time business practices. The
following sections discuss the direct correlation between the above theories and invite alternative
metrics in a competency model based on the work of Dweck (2015), Duckworth (2009), LaPorte
(2017), and Mehta (2017) and the current study, separated into categories to be understood and
further examined as the head, heart, and hustle.
The Head: Investigating the Growth Mindset of Creators
Greater goals via a growth mindset can help determine how a content creator and
independent filmmaker thinks about themselves, their work, and their ultimate potential. This
concept is founded in research on growth mindset by Heckhausen and Dweck (1998). This study
formulated survey questions based on Dweck’s (2006) Likert survey questions, built with a 6-
point scale (1 = strongly agree; 6 = strongly disagree). Individuals with a growth mindset
believe that intelligence and/or talent can be improved with effort. People with a fixed mindset
believe that what they have now is their full capacity and potential. Three survey questions
helped measure growth mindset:
1. You have a certain amount of talent, and you can’t really do much to change it.
2. Your talent is something about you that you can’t change very much.
3. You can learn new skills, but you can’t change your basic talent.
The Heart: How Creators Position Their Passion and Persistence
According to the research of Duckworth and Quinn (2009), grit is a combination of
interest and effort, later coined as passion and persistence (Duckworth, 2016). Content creators
and independent filmmakers were asked to describe their passion and persistence and how they
pursue their efforts. Survey questions on this subject were based on Duckworth and Quinn’s
49

(2009) Likert survey questions, built with a 6-point scale (1 = strongly agree; 6 = strongly
disagree). Respondents were asked to frame the following questions in regard to their
independent filmmaking and content creation efforts:
1. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one.
2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from my previous ones.
3. I become interested in new pursuits every few months.
4. My interests change from year to year.
5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lose
interest.
6. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months
to complete.
Six survey questions asked about perseverance of effort:
1. I have achieved a goal that took years of work.
2. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge.
3. I finish whatever I begin.
4. Setbacks don’t discourage me.
5. I am a hard worker.
6. I am diligent.
The Hustle: How Creators Build Habits Toward Their Career Goals
According to Mehta’s (2017) ethnographic research, hustling is an agentive process for
independent filmmakers aspiring toward careers in the entertainment industry. LaPorte (2017)
developed a hustle research matrix to help predict hustle and future success in athletes. Mehta’s
writings detail the observation of what they describe as the complex interconnection from an
50

individual level to organizational, working across levels to engage within the hierarchy of
production within the entertainment industry “across transitory discursive states’’ and can be
understood as “shades and shapes of reputation posturing” (Mehta, 2015, p. 259). The specific
forms of hustling Mehta discussed were forming connections, working simultaneously,
competition, and reputation-posturing. In this study, Likert-scale questions were used to
understand the importance of various ways independent filmmakers may habituate their hustle
via their time and energy, with options culled from the literature review, including the works of
Botto (2018), Bourdages (2015), Cones (2008), Duplass and Duplass (2018), Eddy and Eddy
(2021), Ferrari (2020), Follows (2022), Haine and Edelman (2020), Holt and Perren (2019), Lee
and Zollner (2019), Mehta (2017), Regev (2018), Smith and Choueiti (2013), Vonderau (2019).
These hustling expectation options were listed as such:
• film school education
• film festivals
• development labs, diversity initiatives, and training programs
• filmmaking grants and fellowships
• internships and professional shadowing programs
• volunteering on productions and at events
• crowdfunding campaigns
• industry-related professional career and contract work
• building my audience, followers, and subscribers
• packaging my intellectual property
• creating content
• distributing content
51

• paying my investors back
Theoretical Frameworks
The literature review explored research founded in the following theoretical frameworks:
creative destruction and Schumpeter’s (1942) theories on innovation, which describe
entrepreneurship as reorganizing and restructuring innovations to create new and advanced
ventures. Competency modeling rates skills as values to give a data point to each value. Human
capital as applied throughout this literature review to examine the value cultivated in the
filmmaker’s hustle. The ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 2005) is used as a basic
framework for understanding individual and societal relationships, with facets that interplay and
interconnect at all levels and influence the independent film industry at large.
Creative Destruction and Innovation
The theory of innovation (Schumpeter, 1942) serves to examine the microcosm of the last
20 years in entertainment. From theaters to cable television, video stores, on-demand television,
and streaming services, media and entertainment have seen exponential growth amid constantly
innovating approaches through technological advances. These innovations can apply to various
sectors and aspects of entertainment, from finance and development to production to distribution
and waterfall disbursements. Financing creatives has seen similar and disparate technological
advances through opportunities such as Kickstarter, Wefunder, Slated, Legion M, Patreon, Seed
& Spark, and other approaches. Thus, it makes practical and pragmatic sense to explore the
opportunities around talent discovery models regarding the creator workforce as an upcoming
market for the next possible evolution as it relates to effectual financing opportunities.

52

Competency Models for Talent Tracking
Similar to the creative destruction (Aghion et al., 2020) of entertainment and financing
options, talent evaluation is evolving. As Glassdoor helped to create transparency in
organizations and LinkedIn helped in verifying someone’s skills, technological advances make it
possible to redefine what competency looks like (Cadigan, 2021; Clark, 2021) and how we might
track and collect data for what’s coming next. The competency models that use data to track the
value of a person’s skills are becoming more present to the times, verifying credibility and
acknowledging accountability in ever-increasing spaces. Tools and resources like Fishbowl may
be helpful for the corporate world, but they do not reflect creator culture or those working in the
gig economy, nor specifically independent filmmakers (Mulcahy, 2016; Schram, 2020;
Sundararajan, 2017). Additionally, the Reframe stamp of approval is a verifiable equity measure
of credited staff for a film and is an excellent resource for independent film accountability, akin
to a Better Business Bureau stamp, for entertainment, but still leaves more work to be done to
track the larger creator workforce efforts in entertainment.
Human Capital of a Content Creator
Currently, a filmmaker may graduate from the best film school, receive coveted festival
awards, be accepted into prestigious programs at major studios, and be recognized as top
potential, as was traditionally understood as the highest forms of human and societal capital in
the entertainment industry (Regev, 2018). However, they may not be eligible for future funding
for their projects or have allies who can support their viability (Eddy & Eddy, 2021). The
meritocracy narrative is prevalent and even popular despite research that debunks its reality for
creators (McNamee & Miller, 2018). The industry does not currently acknowledge the work
some people do to gain recognition. Rather, barriers, including those at an agency or
53

entertainment legal firm, often prevent access to private initial investment funds or personal
connections (Sacks, 2015). Both financial and social capital further deny equitable access.
Addressing inclusion requires a pipeline of fair and equitable access (Atcheson, 2018).
Bronfenbrenner Outlines Systemic Barriers
The ecological systems model (Bronfenbrenner,2005) is a framework to better
understand individuals and their multilayered relationships within larger communities and the
greater societies that have influence and impact over them and by them. Who and what defines
an individual and the varying layers of impact that have such influence are offered within
Bronfenbrenner’s research. Within this larger framework, an individual can be understood as a
part of a larger system and or whole. Effectively, an individual and their relationship to their
larger industry involves interrelated layers that reach both inward onto the individual from a top-
down approach, as well as outside-in.
Additionally, individuals influence the landscape of the whole, which includes
entertainment and the media marketplace, described as the existing industry galaxy or orbit.
Using the structure to better understand the position of the independent filmmaker as it relates to
the influences upon them as well as how they influence their greater environment is described
herein. The framework allows for understanding these influences and multilayered complexities,
such as an individual working towards a goal and how different societal groups may interact with
that individual’s decision making and opportunities. This foundational framework represents the
independent filmmaker and content creator as an artist and individual at the center of
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model (Figure 7) as part of a much larger and more
complex system. In this study, the outermost system exists as the entertainment industry and
marketplace. These individuals at the core of this framework hope to work their way out through
54

the varying degrees of the system of the entertainment industry, from personal relationships with
respective human capital to societal and studio barriers at play, seeking further opportunities to
finance their creative goals.

Figure 7
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model As It Relates to Author’s Research

Note. From Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development
by U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), 2005. Sage Publications. Copyright 2005 by Sage Publications.

55

The individual creator lives within and is interrelated to the microsystem. From this
ecological perspective, the filmmakers are at the core of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model.
These individuals hope to work their way out through the varying degrees of the system: the
entertainment industry. Some creatives are making content for the microsystem: their family and
peers. Others are extending to the mesosystem, where regional festivals and local film schools
live. The exosystem consists of elite film development programs, such as festivals and programs.
These creators could potentially be the indie-darlings with all the potential that almost reach the
most decision makers. And the macrosystem is only intended for an elite few.
Further understood from a macro perspective, the entertainment industry can be
understood as a hierarchical structure (Botto, 2018) in a two-dimensional visual. This additional
visual is used to represent the hierarchical structure discussed in Bronfenbrenner’s three-
dimensional model (Figure 7). This image presents how independent filmmakers and content
creators exist at the bottom of a theoretical caste system. This hypothetical caste pyramid (Figure
8) represents the hierarchy that more clearly illustrates the caste system and the divisions that
separate creatives (Duplass & Duplass, 2018) from upward mobility. At the bottom of this
structure are the independent filmmakers and content creators. Above them are the film schools,
regional film festivals, and peer-to-peer platforms. Above those are the more elite talent
development programs and their direct relationships with talent and sales agents, as well as more
highly curated distribution resources. And finally, above, there are the independent studios and
financing opportunities topped by the elite megacorporations and the mega-platforms funding
their own internal content and occasionally purchasing a break-out project that was elevated
through the system that helps perpetuate the myth that everyone keeps hustling that they will be
discovered one day.
56

Figure 8
The Hierarchical Structure of the Entertainment Industry From the Perspective of an Individual
Filmmaker and Content Creator

Note. From The Future of Talent Discovery by M. L. Bell, K. Edwards, M. Griffin & B. Warren,
2020. (https://schedule.sxsw.com/2020/events/PP105331). Copyright 2023 by SXSW, LLC.

Many filmmakers work toward developing their human capital (Mehta, 2015; Towse,
2006). However, there is not a linear pipeline (Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019) for them to
transcend from one achievement to another. The model presented in Figure 8 presents the
microcosm of independent filmmaking by presenting the individual as the independent
filmmaker, film artist, or content creator. The microsystem consists of the filmmaking
communities, crew, cast, and groups hustling to distinguish themselves and their talent. The
mesosystem translates into film schools, workshops, regional film festivals, and peer-to-peer
open platforms. The exosystem is represented as the labs, fellowships, elite incubators, market
57

festivals, sales agents, and unions that create the baseline of the economic system for decision
makers. Finally, the macrosystem perpetuates the myth of discovery (McNamee & Miller, 2018),
developing the values and beliefs of the industry, where decision makers largely control what
will make it to market.
Conceptual Framework
In this study, theories of innovation and change will be referenced in relation to the
exploration of the barriers to access within the entertainment industry and the possibilities
toward positive change via alternative metrics and data tracking of more equitable means. The
following theoretical competency model was based on the understanding of an independent
filmmaker’s head, heart, and hustle. Figure 9 presents what a content creator’s talent valuation
could look like via an innovative approach.

58

Figure 9
A Possible Competency Model As It Relates to the Values of an Independent Filmmaker and
Content Creator

Summary
The literature discussed a number of barriers independent filmmakers face in accessing
traditional entertainment industry financing. The research study explores how to best understand
the relationship and or disconnect between independent filmmakers and their access to financing
59

opportunities by better understanding discovery methods and investment practices based on data
and research to improve industry access, address inclusion for talent, and identify potential
profitability practices via access to the talent workforce. As supported by literature, the
entertainment industry has built and upheld systemic barriers within its structure that perpetuate
implicit bias and long-standing racist ideologies, built atop capitalism and its oversimplified
business model of product, which minimizes the cybernetic relationships that are present in film
and independent film production. The entertainment industry continues to make representation
headway in front of the camera, as the marketplace makes it clear that they are interested in a
more accurate view of the world and its global diasporas. However, according to the literature,
the data, and foundational conversations with elite executives and decision makers in the
industry in the nascent stages of this research, the psychology that perpetuates resistance to
change behind the scenes is deeply embedded into day-to-day practice that perpetuates the
entertainment industry.
60

Chapter Three: Methodology
Based on prior research, this study aimed to examine the talent discovery processes for
independent filmmakers and the investment practices of industry executives and investors of
independent film, specifically for those working in the under $10 million budget range. The
research study intended to explore the possibilities of micro-innovations that could be applied for
more equitable access and improved returns on investment. This chapter presents a mixed-
methods study explored from an orthogonal approach, which allowed for contrasting and
comparing two separate sets of independent findings. Quantitative data was collected via an
anonymous survey questionnaire shared with and completed by artists and content creators who
identify as independent filmmakers around the world. Qualitative interviews were conducted
with investors, executive professionals, and industry professionals. Chapter Three presents the
research paradigms in greater detail and the research methods pursued in this study.
Methodology
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach for collecting data. The data are examined
orthogonally, examining them separately and then used independently for comparison and
reference in relation to one another. This research analysis utilizes survey results in comparison
with the transcripts of original interviews and thus based its findings on the quantitative data
findings as well as the transcripts for a comparative perspective of the participants (Gibbs, 2018),
often trying to identify the endogeneity of the findings from each of the stakeholders’
perspectives. The interviewing findings may have had a collaborative relationship with the
researcher (Bergin, 2018), which could have influenced the length of conversations and details
provided by some participants. This research utilized thematic analysis to summarize extensive
data and to provide detailed information (Nowell et al., 2017). For the quantitative portion of the
61

study, as many independent filmmakers as possible received a survey to represent a broad
overview of statistical data to analyze global themes of the creators’ value. The survey was
conducted independently from the qualitative interviews. The goal was to obtain responses from
at least 100 content creators identifying as independent filmmakers from at least 10 countries.
The survey was shared through various national and international art organizations and film
festivals, and their organizers then forwarded it to their alumni, cohorts, and constituents.
Additionally, the survey was shared online via social media.
For the qualitative portion of the study, professional filmmakers, entertainment industry
executives, and investors involved in financing independent films were interviewed to better
understand their processes and practices when it came to talent discovery and film investment
opportunities they create for independent filmmakers. The aim was to better understand the
values that guide the decision-making process when it comes to identifying and valuating
financial viability for potential creators in entertainment by understanding how, where, and why
they identify specific talent for financial opportunities. The intention was to seek connections
and disconnections between what independent filmmakers focus on when seeking financial
support and what their potential financiers may be looking for when considering supporting and
investing in their original intellectual property projects.
Research Design
This is a mixed-methods study conducted with an orthogonal approach to two sets of
independent data. The study was developed so that the quantitative and qualitative elements were
conducted independently of one another, and their results were brought back into conversation
by comparing and contrasting the findings after completion, with no expectation of the findings
necessarily triangulating at any given point. The intention was to uncover connections and or
62

disconnections, which, according to Creswell and Creswell (2018), relies on multiple forms of
data collection and is holistic. The research included individuals in two distinct stakeholder
categories:
● Primary stakeholders: Creatives and independent filmmakers seeking financing.
Artists, content creators, and independent filmmakers are currently hustling, trying to
navigate the system that is the entertainment industry toward their creative career
goals via seeking financing for their original intellectual property projects.
● Secondary stakeholders: Individuals who either invest in or represent a group that
invests in independent films. Individuals who have the power to fund a film but are
not necessarily content creators or filmmakers directly themselves. And established
film industry professionals and creative career professionals who have successfully
navigated the system and now actively have the power to greenlight projects for
future opportunities or finance content directly. All secondary stakeholders have
extensive experience and are credited on existing films as executive producers.
The qualitative interviews were orthogonal to the quantitative data collection. The goal was to
interview no less than 10 executives, and over the course of the research study, a total of 50
interview transcriptions were used in the end findings. The quantitative portion of the study
addressed where independent filmmakers may benefit from increased transparency and
connectivity to holistic industry knowledge and access to investment. The global and anonymous
survey was available to individuals who identify as independent filmmakers around the world.
The findings were collated from a total of 796 total survey respondents who represented 67
countries.

63

Participants
There are two distinct stakeholder groups for this study, and they are statistically
independent while still providing some additional insights when comparing and contrasting the
results. The two stakeholder groups are researched independently and used to compare and
contrast in relationship to their perspective on independent film financing opportunities. The
study began with the artists, content creators, and independent filmmakers. These creatives are
considered the primary stakeholders and participants of this study. The data collected for this
study from the primary stakeholders came from a quantitative survey to better understand the
passion, persistence, and effort of the primary stakeholder group.
The findings of the survey live independently of the data from the secondary stakeholder
group, which allowed for the results to be compared and contrasted while not necessarily
intersecting across the findings for the results and recommendations. It is important to note that
because each participant uniquely expressed their relationship to data collection in the surveys as
well as the interviews, their relationships to the research or the researcher could have impacted
their answers (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). According to the survey and the transcripts, internal
reliability in regards to each question and how it was asked encouraged the ability to reproduce
the study with additional participants in the future (Salkind & Frey, 2019), and it is my opinion
that the research questions were clearly communicated and transparent for the studies respective
purposes (Smith & Nobel, 2010) with no respective or identifiable power dynamics that could
have influenced the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The secondary group of stakeholders included entertainment industry executives,
investors of independent film, and established independent and professional filmmakers. Each of
the interviewees had extensive experience as a producer and, specifically, executive producer of
64

independent films in the under $10 million U.S. dollar budget range. Subjects were collected via
snowball sampling. For this research, the interviewees were understood as those who had the
ability to greenlight and or finance independent films. All interviews were conducted either via
recorded Zoom or over notetaking in-person meetings or scheduled phone calls. All subjects
interviewed were ensured complete anonymity. Those interviewed represent a cross-section of
some of the most influential studios, networks, streaming services, and independent film
financing funds.
Subjects interviewed were initially contacted based on my direct connections to them via
my own work in independent film, and additional subjects were collected using snowball
sampling. Interestingly, based on the suggestions of others, I interviewed many more people who
self-defined as being able to finance a film but, according to this research, were actually not able
to directly finance. Rather than directly being able to finance the films, they came to the table
and added the intrinsic value of human or social capital, or in some cases institutional knowledge
of film financing, to an independent film that fundamentally increased its chances of getting
financing directly from a private investor or fund. I ended up breaking down my 50 interview
transcriptions into two categories: 22 who could directly greenlight and fund films and the other
28 who had extensive experience with financing films in this budget range but were not able to
greenlight or finance them solely off of their own abilities. There was no compensation for the
research involvement of any of the participants within the stakeholder groups.
The mixed-methods approach combines qualitative interviews with established career
independent filmmakers, entertainment industry and executive professionals, and independent
film investors, with quantitative data collected via an anonymous survey questionnaire shared
with and completed by artists and content creators who identify as independent filmmakers
65

around the world. The research focused on the primary stakeholders, independent filmmakers,
and secondary stakeholders. The quantitative surveys were shared online, and the qualitative
interviews were predominantly on recorded Zoom with enabled transcription, with some
additional in-person and some phone calls conducted with traditional notetaking.
Quantitative Research Setting
I shared a detailed anonymous public survey for anyone who self-identified as an
independent or independent filmmaker. For clarification for creators, self-identification began
with presenting the creators with career goals in the entertainment ecosphere and then covering
questions regarding career trajectory accomplishments, accolades, and experienced barriers to
success. I shared this survey with my own film festivals’ alumni as well as through other
independent film forums and alliances with whom I have existing relationships. I asked my
coworkers and colleagues to share the survey to try to reach as many filmmakers as possible
from around the world to get a representation of the breadth of independent filmmakers and their
experiences with financing their creative content.
Qualitative Research Setting
The research setting was online on-camera calls predominantly using Zoom with enabled
transcription. Some conversations were conducted in person or over scheduled phone calls, and
these utilized traditional notetaking for the transcriptions. I spoke directly with all the
interviewees and recorded the conversation transcripts into Google spreadsheets for this research
only. These conversation transcripts were not shared outside the purposes of this research.
Through these conversations, the intention behind these calls was to gather respondents’ insights
on film financing with the goal of better understanding the decision-making practices behind
independent film investment and some of the existing barriers to entry for talent discovery of
66

independent filmmakers. Research questions were designed to understand the values and
valuation structure of what makes an independent creator viable for potential investment by
asking how, where, and why the investors identify certain filmmakers for potential investment
opportunities. The research questions were designed to better understand the tools and resources
being used by individuals and studios and where they are focusing their attention when it comes
to talent discovery in entertainment, specifically for independent film investment opportunities.
The Researcher
Identity
I began my official artist support journey at Sundance Film Festival in 2008, the same
year I founded my own film festival, which would evolve as a mentorship festival. For 12 years,
I worked at some of the most prestigious film festivals and non-profit film organizations while
simultaneously growing my own mentorship festival and programs for independent filmmakers. I
grew my personal mission to encourage and empower creatives who add to the global discourse
through their creations. In 2015, I went back to graduate school to explore the sustainability and
efficacy of the various filmmaker support programs through the non-profits and the studio
development initiative space, specifically in regard to their effects on underrepresented creators.
After my initial graduate research, I was invited by a start-up studio and tech company that was
using blockchain technology to support creators. Here, I was able to build out systems of support
based on my research. During this time, I concurrently enrolled in MBA and juris master’s
programs to better understand business models and the laws around original IP development that
many creatives must navigate. Through this discovery process, I developed questions for my
problem of practice, which brought me to the USC Rossier School of Education to explore my
67

focus in more detail. I have followed this inspiration through the Organizational Change and
Leadership Program, hopefully giving it life, as described by Gilbert (2016).
Positionality
“You can’t hate someone whose story you know” (Wheatley, 2005, p. 9).
I believe the creation of authentic cinema—that which exposes the human condition and
invites others to share, grow, and learn—has the potential to connect us all. I am passionate
about uncovering alternative methodologies and ways of supporting emerging filmmaker talent
discovery for initial seed investment, opening more doors, and addressing equitable opportunities
so more creators may have the opportunity to share their authentic experiences (Thacker, 2016). I
believe the research is ripe with data that shares the present strengths and weaknesses in the
industry, inviting this to be the prime time to develop scouting systems and support opportunities
for unheard and underrepresented voices with their own original IP for development and
production.
Experiencing representation through storytelling is fundamental to how I have grown as a
person. To address equity in the entertainment industry, I have continued my research in an
effort to address change in a way that harmonizes with the existing systems so that regenerative
structures may be explored for development funding for emerging talent in the entertainment
industry. As a female independent filmmaker who leveraged my first films on high-interest-rate
credit cards, I empathize with passionate storytellers without access to early-stage investment. As
an advocate and ally for other storytellers without opportunity, I have dedicated myself to the
most influential non-profit programs that focus on artist development and highlight diversity and
inclusion.
68

Researching the sustainability and efficacy of existing development support for
independent filmmakers, I came away with numerous case studies that left me with many
questions. Having the unique opportunities to observe the highest level of non-profit filmmaker
support in action and to be witness to the decision-making table at the studio level has allowed
me to see the incalculable inequities that exist when it comes to antiquated systems and
processes for how film investment is distributed. It has been through these experiences, backed
by extensive research and data, that I hope to further understand and learn how the entertainment
industry could address improvements for talent discovery and, ultimately, inclusion through
more equitable access opportunities to existing systemic practices. My intention is based on the
understanding that better systems will benefit all artists and investors concurrently.
Identity: An Unbounded Description of My Positionality
I am a mother, a partner, a student, a founder, a director of an arts organization, a film
programmer, an arts curator, and a mentor of independent filmmaking creatives. I was raised in
Florida with formative living experiences in Jamaica, making the tropics always feel like home.
My mother would say that as a child, I spoke perfect Patois. A conversation starter when I was
younger was that I have had body lice more than anyone I have ever met, thanks to my family’s
agriculture work and time spent out in the farming fields. My parents provided me with many
additional foundational perspectives beyond bugs, including their initially being swingers who,
in my teens, converted to conservative Christianity. Beyond lifestyle was their economic status,
as they were successful entrepreneurs in my youth, and through various tangible natural disasters
(fires, hurricanes, and floods), they lost all their ventures one after the other. Memories of
shopping at Neiman’s faded to waiting on grocery donations while simultaneously avoiding repo
men at the doors. My parents’ religious conversion (Kennedy, 2008) involved a pivot to the
69

NGO space, where I had the incredible opportunity to join them and volunteer on various faith-
based and humanitarian projects in Albania, D.R. Congo, Haiti, Slovenia, Southern Sudan, and
Uganda, including a life-informing experience within an active conflict zone, which allowed me
the opportunity to understand the importance of being able to share your story on a deeper level.
I began working in the entertainment industry as a child, determined to buy a horse for
myself, which I did at age nine. I homeschooled the last few years of high school to be a working
student on an equestrian farm, where I trained and worked with professional competition horses
on the A-Circuit. For university, I sought study-abroad experiences with various university
programs, allowing me to live and study in England, India, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, and the
Philippines. I studied literature, art, ecology, and social movements. I recognized the experiential
growth when I began to dream in Italian. Thanks to my educational opportunities, I sought
holistic understanding that took me from roundtable discussions at the World Bank in
Washington, DC, to information sessions with Zapatistas in Oaxaca, affirming I have much to
learn about the world and from others. I have always been humbled and grateful for the
perspectives that can be exposed through art and film.
After my undergraduate work, I returned to the entertainment industry. On my first studio
film, I practiced my ethnography skills, explored each crew member’s role, and learned about the
structures and organizational hierarchy (Mahoney, 1979). As an organizer, I was drawn to
producing. I hustled, a term Mehta (2017) explored in research of independent filmmakers, for
many years thanks to friends who offered couches and meals. When my projects started
exhibiting at film festivals, I was drawn to the festival industry, as it was able to amplify not just
one creative group’s work, as with producing a single film, but the festivals were celebrating,
empowering, and connecting multiple filmmaking communities. Solidifying my commitment to
70

supporting creators and hoping to invite improved innovation to talent discovery to give
everyone the opportunity to share their story as best possible.
Paradigm of Inquiry
As I begin my research, I stand at the epicenter of three paradigms of inquiry. As
referenced by Wilson (2008), it is my intention to be as responsible and accountable as possible
in my choices regarding how I make connections in my research. As a critical/transformative
researcher, I am diving deeper into the hierarchical and legacy issues of power within the
entertainment industry as well as the current paradigms of this university’s structures with which
I am researching. There is a rich recorded history of the long-standing dynamics and legacy
structure in entertainment that, in many ways, persists today. Much research has been done to
further explain the power structures and define the existing decision-maker hierarchy. It will be
important that I expound on these delineations of power to fully evaluate the nature of the
existing pipeline of talent discovery.
As a researcher, I believe there is a way to work with and alongside many of the legacy
structures in place while still deconstructing the ways in which the industry discovers and
develops emerging filmmaker talent. In no way do I believe I am going to change anything
overnight in regard to equity and inclusion. However, I am confident that if I present data to
inform safer and more profitable investment strategies in regard to emerging talent, then I could
encourage the behavior of individuals who make decisions in the industry and, in effect, address
equitable inclusion from the ground up. Finally, to bring out the pragmatism in my research, I
hoped to add data that may be viable for proposing tangible solutions that could exist in the form
of alternative database value metrics for evolving and complex algorithmic and or technological
advances. Utilizing these alternative data points and increasing the available trackable data and
71

information could increase the validation of micro-investment in emerging talent to develop their
own original IP. Based on the data, this has the potential, in effect, to provide more equitable
access for all, giving unheard and underrepresented voices a chance to be heard and share their
story, essentially giving creators a more equitable chance to “try out” for financing opportunities.
Connecting the Pieces and Centering Equity
A more equitable entertainment industry is at the core of this research. The literature and
research suggest that current investment methods do not support female or diverse filmmakers
(Hunt, Ramon, & Tran, 2019). Furthermore, as Sherbin and Rashid (2017) write, diversity in and
of itself does not lead to inclusion. Smith and Choueiti (2013) noted that traditional investment
practices upheld by existing power structures are a leading impediment to access for women and
minority filmmakers. Hunt et al. (2020) reported that 91% of studio film executives are White,
and 82% are male. Also, 93% of senior executives are White, and 80% are male (Hunt et al.,
2020). These numbers are reminiscent of McIntosh’s (1988) work, which found that White
privilege perpetuates existing systems. Still, learning from Malloy (2011), it is the responsibility
of the researcher to go beyond the data and ensure that I was the best person for the inquiry. I
focused on the data that matters and made intentional interpretations so that the data could be
used in a meaningful and productive way to encourage positive change and intentional
improvements.
Data Sources
The following is a brief outline of the multiple methods I used in this study and the
timing and sequence of data collection activities.

72

Quantitative Survey of Independent Filmmakers
I completed data collection with an anonymous quantitative survey of independent
filmmakers, described as my primary stakeholder group. My hope here was to reach the zeitgeist
of independent filmmakers from around the world. My personal goal was to survey no less than
100 filmmakers from at least 10 countries who could provide a more comprehensive view of
their growth mindset, grit, and habit expressions of hustle. The survey was shared through
FilmFreeway (n.d.). And the following organizations had access to share the survey: the African
Film Institute, ARRAY, Backstage, Catalyst Story Institute, DOHA, Elevent, Festival Angaelica,
the Film Council of the Philippines, Film Festival Alliance, the Film Festival Doctor, Film
Independent, Filmocracy, Full Spectrum Films, FWD-DOC, GQue Films, Lean Filmmaking,
Mama Film, Outfest, PGA, Seattle Film Summit, Seed & Spark, Slamdance, Slated, Stephen
Follows, Unifrance, and USC.
Qualitative Interviews of Financiers/Industry Professionals
Initially, I sought no less than 10 interviews, but with an expanded research window, I
ended up with transcriptions from 50 interviews. These interviewees work as executive
producers, hedge fund managers, decision makers at studios, investment bankers who fund slates
for films or private investors, or established filmmakers who are funding new projects. I
conducted Zoom video conferencing calls, phone calls, and a handful of in-person conversations.
With each participant interviewed, I asked the same questions to learn more about incentives to
practice and existing policies that may influence their existing processes for talent discovery and
investment in independent filmmakers.
Before the interview questions were determined for this study, an initial nascent research
step was taken. Between October and December 2021, I interviewed 207 independent
73

filmmakers in 30-minute recorded Zoom calls. All these participants were alumni of Festival
Angaelica and asked the broad and intentionally open question, “What is the greatest barrier to
your independent filmmaking and creative career success?” Of the 207 calls, 205 of the
participants answered with some degree of focus that access to financing was the greatest barrier
to their potential success. Two outliers assured me that the only barrier to their success was the
limits of their own minds. In support of the majority, the 205 filmmakers who shared their time
and stories with me, the focus of this study, I developed and refined my final three questions for
investors to better understand access to this respective financing on behalf of the creators who
are passionate, persistent and making great efforts towards their respective creative career goals
in the entertainment industry.
For the qualitative portion of the study, I sought participants for interviews initially
through existing industry connections, previous coworkers, and colleagues. I then asked those
who participated for referrals using a snowball sampling approach. I shared my public Qualtrics
link to introduce my research purpose and asked participants for time to speak if they identified
as independent film investors on projects in the under $10 million U.S. dollar budget range. I
reached out to investors with whom I have been in contact in the past from my professional
positions in the entertainment industry, as well as those whom I have worked with at various art
organizations. I hoped to speak with no less than eight to 12 investors. Thanks to very positive
feedback, I was able to do interviews with 50 executives whose conversations I transcribed for
this study. Based on the interviews, I found that not all of them were able to identify as film
investors with full capacity to either fund or greenlight a film. I learned that several participants
were in positions where they were loaning their own human and or social capital to incentivize
outside investors to greenlight or fund the films, but they themselves did not have the capital to
74

fund the films solely as individuals. This created a tertiary subcategory that I separated in my
findings. Therefore, for my qualitative portion, I utilize the responses from 22 participants and
then reflect on the other 28 participants who are actively engaged in the process of funding films
but not themselves writing the checks per se. They do, however, add valuable insight as they
themselves add human and social capital to independent films by way of their institutional
knowledge and experience, connections with funders, and accountability of previous works.
My interviews were predominantly conducted over Zoom, with 27 of them being
recorded Zoom calls with the auto-transcription feature engaged. The other 23 were in-person or
phone calls, in which I utilized traditional notetaking for transcription during the conversation. I
utilize more full quotes from my Zoom transcriptions in the findings and more thematic notes
from my notetaking as I summarize often in my own dictation.
The interview findings, as described above, are considered orthogonal with respect to
their relationship with the quantitative survey results of independent filmmakers seeking
financial support. For the quantitative portion of the study, I intended to collect survey responses
from no fewer than 100 filmmakers from at least 10 countries to understand the scope and global
diaspora of independent filmmakers and content creators working towards advancing their
creative careers.
Instrumentation
The quantitative survey was administered through Qualtrics (see Appendix A and
Appendix B). Before the qualitative questions were developed, a preliminary group of creators
who represent the primary stakeholders were questioned. This initial population group of 207
independent filmmakers was originally interviewed to help define and clarify the questions that
would be asked to the second study group’s secondary stakeholders. These independent
75

filmmakers were all alumni of the mentorship film festival, Festival Angaelica, and were
interviewed in the last quarter of 2021. These participants' responses helped clarify the research
questions that would be asked of the secondary stakeholders for this study. Then, the qualitative
interview protocol was outlined in detail for all recorded Zoom calls (see Appendix C), in-person
meetings, and phone calls. Fifty participants were ultimately interviewed beginning in the second
half of 2022 and sought out via a snowball sampling originating from investors and industry
professionals with whom I have direct connections based on my own work in independent film. I
asked these subjects to make recommendations and connections to participants they felt were
most valuable for individuals who are investing in independent films in the under $10 million
U.S. dollar budget range. Interviews continued over the course of one year, from 2022 to 2023.
All participants were offered complete anonymity for their contributions to the data collection.
Data Collection Procedures
The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete for participants of the quantitative
data (see Appendices A and B). All survey results were collected via Qualtrics on the USC
portal. Independent filmmakers were asked to ensure they self-identify as content creators and
independent filmmakers who are seeking financial support for the purposes of the research study.
An introduction to the research was provided at the onset of the Qualtrics survey so that
filmmakers were able to self-identify as well as understand that they would be completing the
survey anonymously and only asked for their geographic location as well as their experience in
regard to how long they have been an independent filmmaker pursuing creative projects and
independent film financing for their original intellectual property.
Interviews were conducted beginning in June of 2022, with initial interviews continued
through February of 2023 and follow-up calls to clarify with some interviews through the final
76

analysis up through June of 2023. The interviews ranged on average from approximately 15
minutes (see Appendix C) to up to nearly an hour when participants had more to share with
respect to the three focus questions. Some participants offered additional feedback over the
course of the analysis, and some subjects allowed for follow-up calls when there was some
clarifying to be done based on the transcription. More than half of the interview conversations
surpassed the interview questions and proceeded offline to an unrecorded format as personal
stories and more intimate details were shared regarding the landscape of independent film
financing. While much of this information colors and deepens my own understanding, the data
collected for the purpose of this study retains itself directly to the questions proposed and
provides full anonymity to the participants who generously offered wisdom, experience, and
insight for the purposes of this study. Research participants were initially asked to give
themselves an alias, but these became a bit unwieldy and admittedly too creative and colorful, so
it was finalized as they were organized into subcategories that participants were labeled as
“Research Interview” (RI) plus the number that they were eventually logged as, such as RI17, for
example, for ease of tracking with my data sets. This was much more bland than some of the
offered aliases but better assured the anonymity that was offered.
Data Analysis
For the quantitative survey, Likert scale results were averaged for interpretation across
the results. Once the survey was completed by participants, I analyzed the data collected.
Initially utilizing visual models to look at the data, I was then able to make sense of what the data
shared. While I initially imagined that the data might have more extreme variants, what I
received was a strong understanding of the weight of passion, persistence, and the myriad of
efforts pursued by the independent filmmakers who participated in the survey. While an
77

orthogonal approach was utilized for the research, it still presented a thematic analysis that
allows for comparing and contrasting ideas across the findings that can summarize the extensive
data and still provide detailed information (Nowell et al., 2017).
For the qualitative portion of the research method, the data was analyzed, organized, and
understood via the emergent themes that were found within the provided transcripts, simplifying
the complex account of data (Nowell et al., 2017). As it is used in conjunction with thematic
analysis, it allows the researcher the ability to search for themes that emerged while analyzing
the narrative data received from the original interview transcripts (Nowell et al., 2017).
Transcripts were analyzed, creating a unique and intentional codebook in Google Sheets. For
these recorded interviews, coding was used in the transcripts to determine emerging themes
utilizing spreadsheet tools.
Upon completion of the interviews, I established a detailed spreadsheet to analyze the
information collected, building rows per interview and adding columns to further analyze the
participants by basic characteristics, such as their field of expertise in the entertainment industry
and color gradients, to determine their ability to greenlight and or finance an independent film.
Here, I further divided my interviews according to the responses, adding keyword columns.
The data were finally analyzed in the findings by creating a narrative that shares their
responses in a fluid conversation based on themes that arose in the existing practices of talent
discovery and their relation to it, based on their answers. The analysis allowed for a greater
understanding of how these executives, investors, and filmmakers have worked in practice
regarding identifying talent, what, where, and why they find new creators to work with and fund,
and what characteristics and experiences they ultimately seek out in those creators and
filmmakers.
78

Upon further evaluating the interviews, I created a validity score based on the needs and
intentions of this research. Initially, I was able to subdivide the interview participants based on
their additional career experience and or work focus beyond their work and efforts as executive
producers. Categories, based on participants, were divided into the following categories: analyst,
creative, executive, finance, investor, legal, philanthropy, and technology. These categories were
then given a validity score based on their influence on their ability to greenlight or fund the
primary stakeholders of this research study. The scores were determined by how the interview
subject defined their work and efforts in relation to how it gave them the ability to fund the
filmmakers.
Understanding everyone interviewed was already a film producer and or executive
producer of films, this breakdown was how I separated those interview subjects who were
funding films versus those who were adding their own human or social capital to films to support
the film and its funding efforts. The scores were listed as analyst (3), creative (2), executive (5),
finance (5), investor (10), legal (3), philanthropy (3), technology (3). The scores allowed me to
separate the responses into the top 22 key financiers, subjects who scored over a total of 10 in
this validity score, allowing the other 28 interview subjects to share their insights and experience
raising financing. Each of these scored less than 10 in the validity score. After coming up with
the score, I was able to separate the interviews based on those who held the power and or
decision-making capability to greenlight and or finance the filmmakers and compare those
findings with the subjects who have extensive experience in or around financing films but not
financing the films themselves.

79

Validity and Reliability
Ideally, the survey was shared widely enough to yield a fair and accurate representation
of creatives around the world who consider themselves independent filmmakers working in the
under $10 million budget range. I utilized the current main database for submitting to film
festivals with similar projects, along with many additional art organizations. By using this main
database to share my survey with potential participants and getting support from other art
organizations, I feel that the filmmakers polled represent a wide breadth of early career creatives
and full time creatives working in independent film. The goal was to ensure that the questions
were representative of the data sought to explore a more nuanced understanding of the
independent filmmakers’ passion and persistence as they work toward their career goals. The
responses are helpful but did not provide the analysis depth I was ultimately seeking. For my
qualitative research questions, it was important to use detailed transcripts, which helped in
coding for emerging themes with keywords across the transcripts. The goal was to recognize
patterns among words to present a greater contextual understanding of the existing landscape in
the industry for investors in this budget range (Leung, 2015). The end result was that it was
much easier to use direct quotes from the Zoom conversations with auto transcription enabled
versus the in-person and phone calls where I took traditional handwritten notes.
Ethics
The IRB review fell under the full review umbrella. The study addressed individuals’
personal narratives and experiences and, therefore, required a comprehensive understanding to
ensure minimal risk to participants and prevent confidentiality breaches.
The research was intended to take a holistic view of independent filmmakers’ head, heart,
and hustle and explore quantifiable data that could address access to a potential pipeline for
80

future talent discovery. The research sought to include potential constructivist approaches to
existing initiatives within the entertainment industry that may be explored for improvement.
Additionally, the research addressed gaps between existing literature and the reports on the lack
of inclusion (Crenshaw, 1989) with additional data to explore pragmatic opportunities to invite
access and inclusion for independent filmmakers around the globe.
Through a critical/transformative paradigm lens, according to Mertens (2007), I sought to
deconstruct current practices to address the lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the
entertainment industry as an issue of social justice. I also self-reflected on positions I have held
in the industry to better evaluate my assumptions throughout the research (Mertens, 2010). This
research was designed to address ways to innovate existing practices, understanding that this
work would be part of an existing ecosystem by addressing the oppression built into the system
(Lewis, 2012) and proposing alternatives and potential innovations to benefit the existing
hierarchy. Once the foundation for understanding how and why the practices exist as they are,
the aim was to research with a lens of pragmatism and offer straightforward and actionable
proposals and data that may lead to solutions to address creative destruction (Aghion & Howitt,
1992) through micro-innovations in building alternatives data metrics and innovative ways to
improve current talent discovery and early investment practices.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations that may have influenced the outcome of my research include the fact that the
industry is ever-changing. Internal validity refers to the degree of confidence that outside factors
will not influence the research. When I began the foundational aspects of this research, it was
pre-COVID, with many streaming channels not having existed yet, and film festivals were
expected to be in-person. When I began this research, theatrical releases were the pinnacle of
81

distribution strategy. Since then, everything shifted and continues to bend. Of course, time is a
real limitation, but overall, the speed at which things are changing is the real challenge. As I
make final edits, the entertainment industry is facing unprecedented strikes as the WGA and
SAG-AFTRA are on strike concurrently, which has not been affected since 1960. The creator’s
struggle is real, and actions are being taken on all sides as I edit this research.
The boundaries and delimitations of the study include access to enough representatives of
global creators and investors who are the aspiring and independent filmmakers and professionals
in the entertainment industry that this research hopes to represent. External validity refers to how
the results of the research could be applied to other subgroups in entertainment or outside
industries. I conducted interviews with industry executives and investors as they represent a very
fine level of detail to understand decision-making practices. There are far fewer true decision
makers in the entertainment industry at large.
82

Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter presents the results of the independent filmmaker survey to better
understand the head, heart, and hustle of independent filmmakers. This survey established a
reflection into three key areas of the filmmakers’ character, work ethic, and actual efforts toward
their creative career goals. Based on the initial set of questions built out of the research on
growth mindset, the filmmaker’s head was established as being representative of a strong growth
mindset. Filmmakers surveyed exhibit a strong belief that they will improve their skill and craft
and that they are on a journey towards improving their talents versus already peaking.
Filmmakers established an understanding of their heart based on the questions built from the
research on grit to reflect their passion and perseverance toward their creative career goals.
Filmmakers who responded to the survey provided some greater understanding that many
creators are multitaskers with multiple projects going on at one time, and they make an earnest
attempt to complete projects and stick with them through to the end, even when concurrent
projects pull them in different directions. Finally, filmmakers shared what they are doing with
their active efforts to pursue their careers based on a list of possible efforts that are often
expected from emerging creators based on the literature review. According to these results, the
data shared that there is some shift and differentiation between what earlier career content
creators are spending their time doing versus what more established independent filmmakers are
doing, but the consensus revealed these participants to be very busy with a myriad of efforts to
establish themselves as independent filmmakers viable for investment in their original
intellectual property projects.
Chapter Four also presents the results of interviews with industry professionals and
independent film investors to better understand the needs and priorities of talent discovery and
83

early career investment in independent filmmakers. The interview questions were based on
preliminary research where independent filmmakers were asked what they considered the
barriers to their creative career success or what might be holding them back from their creative
and independent filmmaking goals. In all, 205 of 207 interviewees shared that access to
financing was the greatest barrier. With over 99% of the majority of those interviewed
understanding their creative career barrier as access to finances, it is my hope that this research
may be available to help deconstruct that barrier and learn from it. That foundational research
helped determine the following research questions asked to the 50 unique individuals who
participated and contributed to this research by sharing their answers as private investors, fund
managers, industry professionals who green light films and/or high-level executive decision
makers with the capacity to finance an independent film under $10 million. I concluded the
research by dividing the 50 respondents into two distinct categories based on their answers. The
first category included 22 participants with full capacity to green light and or fund an
independent film with an under $10 million budget and the second category included 28
participants who will not fund directly, but rather add value via their human and social capital to
elevate a films status and viability for future investment. Data were collected in 2022, with
follow-up questions and further detail collected and results analyzed in 2023. The research
questions I ultimately asked of my participants were the following:
1. How or where do industry professionals and/or investors find independent filmmakers
for potential collaboration on projects in the under $10M budget range?
2. What characteristics of these independent filmmakers do industry professionals
and/or investors value most?
84

3. What experience are industry professionals and/or investors looking for when it
comes to identifying early career talent to collaborate with?
Quantitative: Independent Filmmaker Findings
Based on the result of 796 responses to the independent filmmaker survey, 745
individuals confidently self-identified as independent filmmakers, 41 were unsure if they
qualified, and 10 shared that they did not feel qualified to self-identify as such (Figure 10).

Figure 10
Participants Who Identify as Independent Filmmakers

85

Following their self-identification, the surveyed filmmakers were asked how long they
had been working as independent filmmakers. The results showed that the majority of
respondents, 306, have been working in the independent filmmaking space for less than 5 years
(Figures 11 and 12). These respondents exhibited early career institutional knowledge growth
(Hillman, 2017; Mehta, 2017) that builds up over time. There was then a drop off in engagement
for midcareer creatives, with a small spike back up for individuals who had worked in the space
for more than 20 years, with 68 filmmakers representing the long game of career engagement
based on the surveyed filmmakers who responded to the survey.

86

Figure 11
Participants’ Years as Independent Filmmakers

Figure 12
Participants’ Years as Independent Filmmakers in Percentages

87

This research was always intended to have a global perspective. However, the literature
and the data, while attempting to be as representative as possible, are still largely focused on the
United States, Europe, and Australia based on previous research data and reviewed literature.
The survey representatives were from a total of 67 countries, with a global representation map
reflected in Figure 13.

Figure 13
Participants’ Countries

88

Even with 67 countries represented, the majority was reflected from the following top 15
countries, based on the survey respondents (Table 1).

Table 1
Fifteen Most Represented Countries
Countries Number Share
United States of America 326 41.42%
India 53 6.73%
Iran 43 5.46%
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 36 4.57%
Canada 27 3.43%
Brazil 18 2.29%
Nigeria 18 2.29%
Turkey 18 2.29%
Mexico 17 2.16%
Bangladesh 13 1.65%
Russian Federation 12 1.52%
Argentina 11 1.40%
Italy 11 1.40%
Spain 11 1.40%
China 9 1.14%

89

Thus, for the majority of these survey results, the statistical results largely reflect the
experiences of the map in Figure 14 and their respective voice as it speaks for the global
diasporas of independent filmmakers across the globe.

Figure 14
Participants’ Global Distribution

90

Head: Growth Mindset of Independent Filmmakers
For the following Likert-scale survey items, independent filmmakers were asked
questions based on what, in this research, is considered head. The head concept, as understood
herein, is based on the existing research on growth mindset by Dweck (2015). Here, filmmakers
were asked, on a sliding scale, how much they agreed with the following questions. The initial
head questions were positioned as such:
1. You have a certain amount of talent, and you can’t really do much to change it.
2. Your talent is something about you that you can’t change very much.
3. You can learn new skills, but you can’t change your basic talent.
The results for the questions are broken down in Tables 2 and 3 and Figures 15 and 16.

Table 2
Survey Results on Growth Mindset
Field Mean value Count
You can learn new skills, but you can’t change your basic
talent.
7.83 684
Your talent is something about you that you can’t change very
much.
7.52 675
You have a certain amount of talent, and you can’t really do
much to change it.
7.39 678

91

Figure 15
Graph for Survey Results on Growth Mindset

Table 3
Percentages for Survey Results on Growth Mindset
You can learn new
skills, but you can’t
change your basic
talent.
Your talent is
something about
you that you can’t
change very much.
You have a certain
amount of talent, and
you can’t really do
much to change it.
Strongly agree 15.64% 11.19% 8.32%
Somewhat agree 22.49% 17.85% 15.8%
Neither agree nor
disagree
15.36% 14.59% 15.8%
Somewhat disagree 21.79% 24.79% 26.52%
Strongly disagree 24.72% 31.59% 33.57%

92

Figure 16
Distribution of Survey Results on Growth Mindset

The first set of questions was based on the research on growth mindset established by
Dweck (2015). These results are referenced and reviewed with an important emphasis on
understanding the head of the filmmaker, the filmmaker’s intellectual understanding of their self
and how they identify in relation to their experience and how they understand those in relation to
their ability to get better and improve upon their own set of skills and practices over time. The
results of these initial head-related findings were that the majority did exhibit a growth mindset
when it comes to believing that their skills can be learned and that they can improve their basic
talents. Interestingly, it seemed the majority began to lose faith with the second notion, as it
reflected their belief in their ability to improve their talent, with the majority only somewhat
agreeing that talent can be improved. With the final statement of growth mindset, the results
93

showed an upswing in the majority regaining confidence in their growth mindset, believing that
there is, in fact, much that can be done to improve one’s talent with effort. What is important
based on these results is that many respondents exhibited what can be understood as growth
mindset and continue to pursue creative careers in this space of the entertainment industry. The
struggle, according to the data, is that regardless of their belief in themselves and how they can
improve, systemic barriers may not give them opportunities to fully realize their potential.
Heart: The Grit of Independent Filmmakers
The following survey questions are founded in the literature and research on grit to better
understand the passion and perseverance instituted by independent filmmakers in their creative
career pursuits. Survey respondents were asked to answer two sets of six questions to better
understand what is being referred to in this research as heart. This effectual understanding
toward their creative career goals is reflected in what Duckworth (2016) called grit. The
following initial set of questions was asked:
1. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one.
2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from my previous ones.
3. I become interested in new pursuits every few months.
4. My interests change from year to year.
5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lose
interest.
6. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months
to complete.
The results are presented in Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 17 and 18.
94

Table 4
Survey Results for Consistency of Interest
S/N Field Mean value Count
1 New pursuits every few months 2.9 640
2 Distraction from new ideas and projects 2.85 641
3 Interests change 2.48 638
4 I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a
different one.
2.43 631
5 Obsessed with a certain idea 2.18 635
6 Difficulty maintaining focus 1.84 636

Figure 17
Graph for Survey Results for Consistency of Interest

95

Table 5
Survey Results for Consistency of Interest
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
I have difficulty maintaining
my focus on projects that take
more than a few months to
complete.
9.75% 5.03% 7.55% 58.02% 19.65%
I have been obsessed with a
certain idea or project for a
short time but later lost
interest.
16.22% 4.72% 11.34% 39.53% 28.19%
My interests change from year
to year.
19.12% 5.96% 20.38% 28.53% 26.02%
I become interested in new
pursuits every few months.
28.28% 10.47% 19.69% 18.13% 23.44%
New ideas and projects
sometimes distract me from
previous ones.
35.26% 7.02% 14.20% 21.06% 22.46%
I often set a goal but later
choose to pursue a different
one.
22.03% 3.33% 18.07% 29.32% 27.26%

96

Figure 18
Distribution for Survey Results for Consistency of Interest

The second set of questions being asked was
1. I have achieved a goal that took years of work.
2. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge.
3. I finish whatever I begin.
4. Setbacks don’t discourage me.
5. I am a hard worker.
6. I am diligent.
The results are presented in Tables 6 and 7 and in Figures 19 and 20

97

Table 6
Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort
S/N Field Mean value Count
1 I am a hard worker. 4.71 640
2 I am diligent. 4.61 641
3 I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important
challenge.
4.57 645
4 I have achieved a goal that took years of work. 4.34 645
5 I finish whatever I begin. 4.23 643
6 Setbacks don’t discourage me. 4 639

Figure 19
Graph for Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort

98

Table 7
Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
I am a hard worker. 77.97 17.34 3.28 0.78 0.63
Setbacks don’t discourage
me.
43.82 29.26 12.68 12.05 2.19
I finish whatever I begin. 51.32 30.64 9.18 7.47 1.4
I have overcome setbacks
to conquer an important
challenge.
68.99 22.85 5.12 1.71 1.24
I have achieved a goal that
took years of work.
64.86 21.55 9.15 4.03 3.41
I am diligent. 71.61 20.44 6.4 0.78 0.78

99

Figure 20
Distribution of Survey Results for Perseverance of Effort

The results for the first set of questions were that, while a majority of independent
filmmakers are easily distracted in their creative career goals, the distraction comes every few
months, reflecting the fluidity of the work and the changing environment of working on projects
in the arts and entertainment. This can be reflected in the majority answering that their focus
changes every few months in comparison with the effort and execution of the majority in the
second half of the questions, with the majority noting that extreme perseverance, hard work, and
goal completion are important to their efforts. It is possible that in other industries, a shift in
focus may be seen as fickleness. However, the nature of the work in entertainment can be more
deeply understood in the answers to the second set of questions when the commitment to
100

completing the work and following through is of the utmost importance, as new projects and
seemingly new challenges will continue to come up from one project to the next.
Hustle: Habits of an Independent Filmmaker
The factor analyzed to understand the independent filmmaker and their quantifiable
potential is based on their hustle. Hustle, with its many interpretations, was further researched by
Patel (2017) and Mehta (2017) as the focused habituation toward goals, fiercely motivated
towards their efforts, and often unyieldingly independent in their pursuit of their own creative
goals. This research sought to understand this description in terms of how independent
filmmakers habituate their hustle and what that looks like in practice. The survey respondents
were asked to identify how one might be habituating the creative career goals in order of
importance from very important to not important. Tables 8 and 9 and Figures 21 and 22 present
the results. All of the forms of possible habituation were developed from the literature.

101

Table 8
Mean Value Survey Results for Hustle in Entertainment and Independent Filmmaking
S/N Field Mean value Count
1 Developing content 3.75 634
2 Producing content 3.74 635
3 Distributing content 3.61 633
4 Packaging and pitching your own intellectual property and
creative projects
3.57 633
5 Recoupment and paying investors back 3.41 635
6 Filmmaking grants and fellowships 3.39 637
7 Industry-related professional career and contract work 3.38 633
8 Film festivals 3.32 639
9 Film markets 3.3 637
10 Building audience, followers, and subscribers 3.24 633
11 Internships and professional shadowing programs 3.2 635
12 Development labs, diversity initiatives, and training
programs
3.04 635
13 Volunteering on productions and at film events 3.03 638
14 Crowdfunding campaigns 2.77 634
15 Film school education 2.55 636

102

Figure 21
Hustle in Entertainment and Independent Filmmaking (Mean Value)

Figure 22
Distribution of Survey Results for Hustle in Entertainment and Independent Filmmaking

103

Table 9
Survey Results for Hustle in Entertainment and Independent Filmmaking
S/N Question Not
important
Neutral on
importance
Somewhat
important
Very
important
1 Film school education 16.51% 28.93% 37.58% 16.98%
2 Film festivals 1.10% 11.74% 40.85% 46.32%
3 Development labs, diversity
initiatives, and training
programs
5.04% 21.57% 37.48% 35.91%
4 Filmmaking grants and fellowships 2.51% 10.68% 32.18% 54.63%
5 Internships and professional
shadowing programs
3.78% 17.80% 33.23% 45.20%
6 Volunteering on productions and at
film events
6.58% 21.47% 34.80% 37.15%
7 Crowdfunding campaigns 7.73% 33.28% 32.97% 26.03%
8 Industry-related professional
career and contract work
3.00% 11.22% 30.49% 55.29%
9 Building audience, followers, and
subscribers
3.95% 14.38% 35.86% 45.81%
10 Packaging and pitching your own
intellectual property and creative
projects
0.16% 7.27% 27.65% 64.93%
11 Developing content 0.63% 3.63% 16.09% 79.65%
12 Producing content 0.63% 3.46% 16.85% 79.06%
13 Distributing content 1.11% 7.42% 20.85% 70.62%
14 Recoupment and paying investors
back
3.78% 12.44% 22.52% 61.26%
15 Film markets 2.20% 17.11% 28.89% 51.81%

104

Based on the results, the majority of the answers pertained to the importance of
producing content, followed by developing content. Interestingly, there were no singular items
from the list of opportunities that the majority considered not important at all. However, the
myriad of things to pursue that filmmakers consider important should be noted. This is important
to point out, as it is noted based on the data and the literature that independent filmmakers are
generally expected to be pursuing many avenues of creative career success, which can dilute
work focus, engagement, and even resources to be successful.
Filmmakers Surveyed
Regarding the survey and its results, although the survey was shared with various art
organizations, the majority of filmmakers heard about this research through the mentorship arts
organization I founded in 2008, which, in many ways, inspired this ongoing research (Figure 23).
It also shares that the filmmakers from whom this research is expanding are creators who
themselves are also interested in learning and growing through mentorship opportunities, for the
large part.

105

Figure 23
How Participants Learned of This Research

Deeper Dive Into the Survey Findings
To better understand the survey findings, I examined how the findings and results from
content creators and independent filmmakers who had been working in the space for less than 5
years differed from those with 20 or more years of experience. The results of this comparison
and query are below for a deeper dive into the experience and the understanding of the head,
heart, and hustle from a more long-game theory approach.
From the survey participants, 284 filmmakers have been working in the space for less
than 5 years (Table 10 and Figures 24 and 25).

106

Table 10
Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years
S/N Response Percentage Count
1 Yes 92.81% 284
2 Maybe 6.54% 20
3 No 0.65% 2
Total 100% 306

Figure 24
Bar Graph of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years

107

Figure 25
Pie Chart of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years

Sixty-four filmmakers had been working in the space for more than 20 years (Table 11
and Figures 26 and 27).

Table 11
Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years
S/N Answer Percentage Count
1 Yes 94.12% 64
2 Maybe 5.88% 4
3 No 0.00% 0
Total 100% 68

108

Figure 26
Bar Graph of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years

109

Figure 27
Pie Chart of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years

An interesting comparison between those who had been working for less than 5 years and
those who had been working for over 20 years was the percentage of those who were unsure if
they qualified or should self-identify as independent filmmakers. The data showed that 6.54%
were unsure if they identified, with a small fraction believing they did not qualify. And for those
working over 20 years, no one was unsure if they qualified at all. Still, 5.88% were only maybe
sure that they qualified. These results may represent that no matter how long one is pursuing this
work, it may never fully define one or one’s creative career goals. Additionally, the fact that 68
participants out of 796 had been at this for over 20 years highlights the persistence of overall
content creators and independent filmmakers.

110

Long Game of Head Metrics and Growth Mindset
When it comes to creators who self-identified as independent filmmakers for less than 5
years, the results of their growth mindset questions are presented in Figure 28. Figure 29 presents
the data for those who had been working for over 20 years. The results reflect a minimal
difference in growth mindset characteristics, statistically speaking. For each result, the answer
had only a slight increase in mean value, possibly reflecting that the overall growth mindset of
early career creatives is largely representative of those who will remain in the industry for the
long game (Figures 23 and 24).

Figure 28
Growth Mindset for Independent Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years

111

Figure 29
Growth Mindset for Independent Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years

Long Game of Heart Metrics and Grit
Now, as it is reflected by the heart, based on the research on grit, Table 12 and Figure 30
present the answers from creators who had been working for less than 5 years.

112

Table 12
Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years
S/N Field Mean value Count
1 New pursuits every few months 3.02 235
2 Distraction from new ideas and projects 2.96 233
3 Interests change 2.59 232
4 I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one. 2.54 226
5 Obsessed with a certain idea 2.3 233
6 Difficulty maintaining focus 2.06 232

Figure 30
Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years

113

The results show that, for those who had worked less than 5 years, the emphasis was
different, and their work varied every few months. Table 13 and Figure 31 present the results for
those working for more than 20 years.

Table 13
Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years
S/N Field Mean Count
1 New pursuits every few months 2.9 58
2 Distraction from new ideas and projects 2.79 58
3 Interests change 2.57 58
4 I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different
one.
2.43 56
5 Obsessed with a certain idea 2.4 58
6 Difficulty maintaining focus 1.66 56

114

Figure 31
Heart Metrics and Grit of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years

With the first half of the heart results, the minimal change in one’s core grit values over
time. For the second half of the heart results, I asked the filmmakers more about their passion
and perseverance. The results for those working less than 5 years reflect their long-term career
goals in independent film are presented in Table 14 and Figure 32.
115

Table 14
Passion and Perseverance of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years
S/N Field Mean value Count
1 I am a hard worker. 4.71 235
2 I am diligent. 4.56 234
3 I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important
challenge.
4.49 234
4 I finish whatever I begin. 4.26 234
5 I have achieved a goal that took years of work. 4.09 234
6 Setbacks don’t discourage me. 4.06 233

Figure 32
Passion and Perseverance of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years

116

The results of the creators working for less than 5 years show that the majority believe
they are hard workers and the least confident that they do not let setbacks discourage them
(Table 15 and Figure 33).

Table 15
Characteristics of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years
S/N Field Mean value Count
1 I have achieved a goal that took years of work. 4.69 58
2 I am a hard worker. 4.64 56
3 I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important
challenge.
4.55 58
4 I am diligent. 4.46 56
5 I finish whatever I begin. 4.28 57
6 Setbacks don’t discourage me. 4.2 56

117

Figure 33
Characteristics of Participants Working Less Than 5 Years

Again, similarly to the results of growth mindset and the early heart questions on passion
and perseverance, the deviation from the initial results is very minimal when comparing those
working less than 5 years to those working over 20 years.
Long Game of Hustle and Career Habits
In a final comparison, the results of independent filmmakers who had been working for
less than 5 years in comparison to those who had been working for over 20 years are shared in
Table 16 and Figure 34.

118

Table 16
Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years
S/N Field Mean
value
Count
1 Developing content 3.73 229
2 Producing content 3.69 230
3 Packaging and pitching your own intellectual property and
creative projects
3.6 228
4 Distributing content 3.52 229
5 Filmmaking grants and fellowships 3.45 231
6 Film festivals 3.4 233
7 Film markets 3.38 231
8 Industry-related professional career and contract work 3.36 229
9 Recoupment and paying investors back 3.33 231
10 Internships and professional shadowing programs 3.27 231
11 Building audience, followers, and subscribers 3.27 230
12 Development labs, diversity initiatives, and training programs 3.14 231
13 Volunteering on productions and at film events 3.1 232
14 Crowdfunding campaigns 2.93 230
15 Film school education 2.58 232

119

Figure 34
Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for Less Than 5 Years

The findings for those working less than 5 years note that developing content is most
important, closely followed by producing content. For creators working over 20 years, the results
are presented in Table 17 and Figure 35.

120

Table 17
Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years
S/N Field Mean
value
1 Producing content 3.7
2 Developing content 3.63
3 Distributing content 3.56
4 Packaging and pitching your own intellectual property and creative
projects
3.39
5 Film markets 3.18
6 Industry-related professional career and contract work 3.16
7 Recoupment and paying investors back 3.12
8 Film festivals 3.11
9 Filmmaking grants and fellowships 3.04
10 Building audience, followers, and subscribers 3
11 Internships and professional shadowing programs 2.96
12 Development labs, diversity initiatives, and training programs 2.81
13 Crowdfunding campaigns 2.7
14 Volunteering on productions and at film events 2.68
15 Film school education 2.47

121

Figure 35
Long-Game Deviation of Filmmakers for More Than 20 Years

The deviation from long-term game was most relevant in these findings, showing a small
swap in importance for those who had been in the space for more than 20 years; they prioritize
producing content over developing content as their early career versions do. Interestingly, the
deviation across the various forms of hustle largely remained the same, with small bumps
towards prioritization that come with more experience. The lowest results were for volunteering,
crowdfunding, and traditional film school experience.
Says Who
In regard to where the filmmakers came from, it is important to note who answered the
survey in terms of their career length from less than 5 years to over 20 years. Table 18 and
Figure 36 present the demographics of those working for less than 5 years.
122

Table 18
Demographics of Survey Respondents with Less Than 5 Years’ Experience
Countries Percentage Count
United States of America 32.89% 100
India 11.18% 34
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6.58% 20
Iran 5.59% 17
Brazil 3.95% 12
Canada 2.96% 9
Italy 2.63% 8
Nigeria 2.63% 8
Bangladesh 2.30% 7
China 2.30% 7
Mexico 2.30% 7
Turkey 2.30% 7
Tunisia 1.32% 4
Russian Federation 0.99% 3
Spain 0.99% 3

123

Figure 36
Demographics of Survey Respondents with Less Than 5 Years’ Experience

Table 19 and Figure 37 present the results for those working over 20 years.

124

Table 19
Survey Respondents With More Than 20 Years’ Experience
Answer Percentage Count
United States of America 49.25% 33
Iran 10.45% 7
Spain 5.97% 4
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 5.97% 4
Canada 4.48% 3
Bangladesh 2.99% 2
Argentina 1.49% 1

Figure 37
Survey Respondents With More Than 20 Years’ Experience

125

The results were that those working less than 5 years represented a wider demographic
globally, were statistically more responsive, and learned about the research through the
independent mentorship programs for filmmakers. Those working for more than 20 years were
representative of a smaller global demographic and learned about the survey from additional
outside sources and organizations. The interpretation of this data is that while it is possible for
independent filmmakers to begin their career from anywhere on the globe, future barriers may
present themselves farther along in one’s career. The location variable may also be skewed by
the fact that the longer independent filmmakers establish themselves, they may be pulled to the
regions of the world where more work opportunities exist via productions that are traditionally
being produced more readily, such as in the United States and Europe. Iran’s long game
filmmakers is an interesting finding, as it is, much like the United States, there is less creator
support from the government, especially in comparison to Europe. Interestingly, according to
past interviews with Iranian filmmakers, it can often be much harder for work-travel
opportunities for Iranian creators, encouraging them to keep creating from Iran. The finding that
more of the long game creators who have been working in entertainment for more than twenty
years also found the research survey via more established and elite organizations reflects that
they have elevated in the ranks of their career opportunities by being involved and responsive via
more elevated programs and opportunities and are thus willing to contribute to the learning that
comes with surveys and additional research.
Qualitative: Industry Professional and Investor Findings
Over the course of data collection, I conducted 50 recorded interviews with established
executive producers who are either industry executives or investors in independent film. Twenty-
seven were recorded Zoom interviews, and the other 23 were in-person conversations or phone
126

calls with traditional notetaking as the form of transcription. Each interview with executives and
industry professionals identified with this research’s understanding of top-tier industry decision-
maker criteria based on the data and literature, specifically as industry professionals and/or
investors in independent film. I further broke down the interviews as I analyzed the individuals,
while all 50 were experienced film producers with credits as executive producers. Upon further
evaluation, I created a validity score based on the needs and intentions of this research. Initially,
I was able to subdivide the interview participants based on their additional career experience and
or work focus beyond their work and efforts as executive producers. Categories, based on
participants, were divided into the following categories: analyst, creative, executive, finance,
investor, legal, philanthropy, and technology. These categories were then given a validity score
based on their influence on their ability to greenlight or fund the primary stakeholders of this
research study. The scores were determined by how the interview subject defined their work and
efforts in relation to how it gave them the ability to fund the filmmakers. Understanding
everyone interviewed was already a film producer and or executive producer of films, this
breakdown was how I separated interview subjects who were funding films from those who were
adding their own human or social capital to films to support the film and its funding efforts. The
scores were listed as analyst (3), creative (2), executive (5), finance (5), investor (10), legal (3),
philanthropy (3), and technology (3). The scores allowed me to separate the responses into the
top 22 key financiers, subjects who scored over a total of 10 in this validity score, allowing the
other 28 interviewees to share their insights and experience raising financing. Each of these
scored less than 10 in the validity score (Table 20). After coming up with the score, I was able to
separate the interviews based on those who held the power and or decision-making capability to
127

greenlight and or finance the filmmakers and compare those findings with the subjects who have
extensive experience in or around financing films but not financing the films themselves.

Table 20
Interviewees
Research Interview # Analyst Creative Executive Finance Investor Legal Philanthropy Technology Validity
Score 3 2 5 5 10 3 3 3
1 Creative Executive Finance 12
2 Executive Finance Legal 13
3 Executive Finance Legal 13
4 Creative Executive Philanthropy 10
5 Executive Finance 10
6 Analyst Executive Investor Legal 21
7 Creative Executive Finance Philanthropy Technology 18
8 Creative Executive Finance Investor 22
9 Creative Executive Finance Investor 22
10 Analyst Executive Legal 11
11 Creative Executive Finance 12
12 Analyst Executive Finance Legal 16
13 Executive Finance Investor Legal Technology 26
14 Analyst Executive Investor Legal 21
15 Executive Finance Investor Legal 22
16 Creative Executive Finance Investor 22
17 Creative Executive Investor 17
18 Creative Executive Finance Investor Technology 25
19 Creative Executive Philanthropy 10
20 Analyst Executive Finance 13
21 Executive Philanthropy 8
22 Creative Executive 7
23 Creative Executive 7
24 Creative Finance Investor Technology 20
25 Creative Executive 7
26 Creative Executive 7
27 Creative Philanthropy 5
126

Research Interview # Analyst Creative Executive Finance Investor Legal Philanthropy Technology Validity
Score 3 2 5 5 10 3 3 3
28 Creative Philanthropy 5
29 Creative Executive 7
30 Executive Technology 8
31 Executive Technology 8
32 Creative Philanthropy Technology 8
33 Creative Investor Technology 15
34 Executive Legal 8
35 Creative 2
36 Creative Executive 8
37 Creative Finance 8
38 Creative Philanthropy Technology 8
39 Analyst Finance 8
40 Creative Executive 8
41 Creative Executive 8
42 Creative Executive 8
43 Creative Philanthropy Technology 8
44 Creative Philanthropy 5
45 Creative Philanthropy 5
46 Creative Philanthropy 5
47 Creative Executive 7
48 Creative Executive 7
49 Creative Executive 7
50 Creative Executive 7

127
130

Over the course of interviews, and in reviewing the notes and the transcriptions, it
became clear that 22 of the interviewees with a score of 10 or over fully embodied the key
financial decision maker that I intended to question and learn from, organized in the records as
RI01–RI20, RI24, and RI33. Initially, I intended to include interviews with industry
professionals and established independent filmmakers who seemed to have the power to
greenlight films. However, based on the research study findings, the 28 interview subjects with a
score of under 10 each shared that they do not have the financial capacity to personally fund
films or carry the individual authority to greenlight or finance independent films in the under $10
million U.S. dollar budget range. They, however, shared extensive insights and experience in the
finance space, especially because they regularly support projects via their human and social
capital.
Through the interviews with a few of these subjects, I found that their ability to
greenlight was not what was perceived or an ongoing position of authority. While they did have
the power to add human and social capital for an emerging filmmaker and were often closely tied
to direct finances, they were rarely, if ever, green-lighting films. These individuals, such as RI30,
RI31, RI36, RI39–RI42, and RI49, have all held C-suite positions at major studios or funding
groups but shared their stories as singular spaces in their careers where they were a part of the
decision making, receiving credit, but not holding all the power or finance capabilities to
greenlight.
These other 28 interviews, while helpful and insightful, and many identify more as
independent filmmakers who work as executive producers on occasion or by profession through
their work and who, for this research, are ever hustling to be in a position that may sway the key
decision makers in their direction, when they are not in a seat of authority. In some cases, these
131

executives were collecting the funds from outside sources to be able to executive produce,
essentially making projects happen by sourcing the needed funds from outside groups to whom
they are connected through their social networks. These interviews are recorded as RI21–RI23,
RI25–RI32, RI34–RI50. Additionally, those 28 occasionally leverage their personal finances,
often to degrees that put them at potential financial risk to position themselves for future
investment opportunities. Many were only able to finance films when they were in those
positions of power in their place of employment or were positioned as such to source funds for
specific projects. This left my viable interviews for this research with an elite few who either
invest private funds into independent film or invest funds on behalf of a studio or an organization
that funds and/or invests in films to the top 22 investors interviewed. The other 28 were used for
reflection to give context to the financing space in relation to talent discovery.
All of my subjects were effectively looking to see returns on their independent film
investment. A perspective to describe the ideal interview subjects could be understood by
describing that 22 executives were actually writing the checks or directly greenlighting the
projects for their direct investors while the other 28 were doing the work and sourcing funds or
self-funding projects that made them eligible to get written checks on future projects or
managing funds in a circumstantial situation. I utilized the transcriptions of those top-tier
executives and industry investors to collate the data for each of the three research questions. I
reflect on the second group based on their insight to help understand and bridge the gap between
the creators and the investors.
The themes that arose from my interviews are broken down in the following spreadsheet
(Table 21), which allowed me to collate quotes from my transcripts on each of the respective
themes from the 22 members of the secondary stakeholder group of financiers as well as the
132

additional 28 interview subjects who have experience in financing but are not funding films
themselves. Themes were determined when they were referenced by at least three of the top 22
film decision makers of this research.

133

Table 21
Themes Identified From Top Film Investors
RI # A AOA BS CC C1 C2 E1 E2 FF HW NR PP RR VE
RI13 X X X X X X X X X X X X
RI18 X X X X X X X
RI08 X X X X X X X X
RI09 X X X X X X X X
RI15 X X X X X X X X
RI16 X X X X X X X X X X X
RI06 X X X X
RI14 X X X X X X X X
RI07 X X X X X X X X X
RI17 X X X X X
RI12 X X X X
RI33 X X
RI02 X X
RI03 X X
RI20 X X X
RI01 X X
RI11 X X X X X X X X X
RI10 X X X
RI04 X X X X
RI05 X
RI19 X X X X X X
RI24 X X X X

Note. RI = Research interview, A = Accountability, AOA = Art organizations and awards,
BS = Business savvy, CC = Character and craft, C1 = Collaboration, C2 = Credibility,
E1 = Entrepreneurship, E2 = Experience, FF = Flexibility and flow, HW = Hard work,
NR = Network and relationships, PP = Pay to play, RR = Risk and return, VE = Vision and
execution

134

Research Question 1: How or Where Do Industry Professionals and/or Investors Find
Independent Filmmakers for Potential Collaboration, Support, or Investment?
The following sections present a breakdown and better understanding of both the logistics
and the process of how independent film investors and entertainment industry executives find
filmmakers, how they find them, and where they find them. Based on the literature, there is a
strong sense of what happens once a creator is established with initial investment. The data and
materials available to best manage a budget and be a resourceful filmmaker are abundant.
Additionally, there are many materials, resources, literature, and data that share best practices for
finding an investor. For the filmmaker, there is a wealth of consultants working in the space who,
for a fee, will explain how film financing works in more detail. However, this question is
established from the other side of this knowledge: how and where are investors and industry
executives at the decision-making tables finding their potential creators for future initial
investment? This question was asked to glean insight into how those resources and the data are
used for filmmakers to align with the practical experiences of investors and industry executives
who identify emerging filmmakers for potential investment.
Organizations to Awards
According to the interviewees, it was common for investors to scout prospective
filmmakers and projects early on at organizations “like AFI, The Gotham, and Sundance
[Institute],” said RI07, with which RI11 and RI15 agreed. Effectually, 17 interviewees spoke
about the importance of the art organizations when it comes to talent discovery practices. RI07
shared that they are “looking for filmmakers that have done the work to get themselves to the
major art organizations and be there to pitch their work at The Gotham or a comparable event.”
RI11 said, “If they are being curated and developed by Sundance, then I’m going to take a look
135

at them.” The comfort and trust that these elite curatorial programs are the ones identifying talent
for investors was an interesting finding. Whereas literature shares that access is all around us, the
investors interviewed seemed to be comfortable that the work for talent discovery is being
handled by the elite art organizations and film festivals. RI05 said that their clients prefer
Sundance to have “already chosen them, identifying them as eligible for a next opportunity.”
These major arts organizations are considered “initial gatekeepers,” according to RI15. What is
interesting to note is how early in one’s career this is perceived by the investor, when from the
creator’s perspective, it’s quite far along on the theoretical pipeline of creative career progress.
RI03 and RI08 did say they are “always scouting” from open-source platforms, such as
“YouTube and Vimeo,” but the real thread among the responses, such as from RI18, RI11, and
RI19, all claimed the arts organizations as the foundation for “affirming” (RI18), “validating”
(RI11), or “identifying creators” (RI19). RI11 expanded on the organizations by calling out their
development programs, labs, and fellowships as “key indicators of identifying” emerging
filmmakers early on. RI33 declared that it was “because of [their personal experience with] the
organizations” that they have been positioned to greenlight future projects. Again, early on is
relative here, respectful of one’s perspective, noting that long before their current position, RI07,
RI24, and RI33 shared that they were once on the ground as fellows “of the labs” themselves
much earlier in their careers.
Additionally, film festivals, which are hosted by the organizations at large, were
recognized for their planned events and for providing opportunities to meet creators organically,
as noted by both RI07 and RI09. RI18 discussed the “advantages of finding these creators who
have the [institutional] knowledge and industry experience” of having “been through the
development process” in advance. RI14 assured that the learning that comes from these spaces
136

and support programs is what “builds a creator’s knowledge and experience” in a way that sets
them up for future funding. Multiple interviewees, including RI14, spoke of the “benefits of
[creators] having been through the labors of distribution,” and RI18 confirmed that
understanding how the “back end of a project works” is incredibly valuable for a future potential
collaborator or investment opportunity. RI09 expanded on festivals, explaining that while they
largely attend them because they are there “presenting their own produced films,” they often “see
films and meet filmmakers” with whom they build relationships and whose work piques their
interest. As they see it, they are always building their “filmmaking network.” R133 again
reflected on their early career success at festivals as what “positioned [them] to be able to fund
projects” currently.
However, still, for most interviewees, the agencies are often the initial gatekeeping of
potential independent filmmakers’ access to initial investment, which was confirmed by RI03,
RI04, RI05, RI07, and RI08. RI06 and RI24 shared that they used to “only start the search at the
agencies,” and RI14 confirmed the “legal reasons” why the agency identification is the
foundational source of emerging creators for the most reduced risk. Here, RI05 shared a glimpse
of their client roster as two main stakeholders, “extremely talented creators with original IP
[intellectual property”] that is being developed at the top level of talent development and the
other group being “extremely high net worth individuals” who are specifically looking to fund
something “worthy of an awards campaign,” that they then can basically pay to play to
participate in, and that these award-worthy projects are often being supported early on in the
organizational space. The mention of organizations as a catalyst to carpets came up often with
interviewees who represented the higher net worth private investors, such as RI02, RI05, RI08,
137

RI13, and RI16. RI24 did speak to their progress toward “making alternative pathways” for
identification in the funding process, including “distribution agreements from streamers.”
Network
Based on the interviews, the old adage that it is all who you know is ever true for
filmmakers as well as their investors. RI12 simplified it even further, stating that not only was it
“whom you know, but, specifically, whom you have already worked with and might want to
work with again.” RI14 dove further into the traditional analysts’ thinking of why this social
network and social capital can be the “most important indicator of future success” and reduced
risk on investment. RI10 clarified their connections of knowing: “Most of it comes through
accountants, law firms’ agents, and other filmmakers that we’ve worked with in the past.” RI07
shared that they are most often engaged in potential projects through agents “who represent
filmmakers, but they are also readily sought out because their information lives online, such as
IMDb.” However, they generally do not engage because it poses legal complications.
RI13 utilizes technology to work as a paywall to help build relationships with anyone
interested in pay-to-play, reducing the risk of cold contacts and limiting their liability with
partners. This process is theoretically more equitable, as they are utilizing open sources.
However, they are still pay-to-play, limiting who will participate. RI24’s alternative funding
model shared based on streamer agreements is a similar paywall that limits the liability of early
career creatives. Beyond whom you know, there is an important clarification for who knows you
as well. RI06 shared that, based on their experience, filmmakers are found via “word of mouth,
or a friend of a friend who was involved.” RI08 and RI09 reiterated this statement with the
“importance of who you know.” RI09 recounted a story that included a timeline of “a number of
138

feature film projects that they [their company] had produced, where the filmmakers and investors
all originally met at the same party at SXSW many years previous.”
RI18 described the networking process as “meeting filmmakers out in the night.” RI07
further identified an unspoken and somewhat invisible understanding of who is “worth knowing
when you can acknowledge and confirm how long they have been around.” RI07 and RI19
discussed the importance of the investors’ institutional “knowledge and experience” as being
more important than the filmmakers as well because, as RI19 stated, “they need to know what
they are doing, that they’ve done this before and that they are actually adding value to what you
will be doing moving forward.” RI04 shared that “we are funding creators we know, that have
been through familiar systems,” thus ensuring that there is a shared level of institutional
knowledge and, in many cases, training of the industry practices.
RI06 and RI15 both expressed the importance of the “pathways” to finding emerging
independent filmmakers exclusively through agencies and, specifically, “credible independent
production and distribution companies,” said RI15. According to both RI06 and RI16, these
theoretical pathways are less available even for first-time investors, leaving them with more up-
front work as well, which then leads to networking. This sentiment harkens back to what RI19
was speaking to in regard to “everyone having experience from both sides.” This provided
somewhat of a surprise in regard to findings. In the same way, creators with great talent are not
just discovered based on sheer effort. Investors, regardless of sheer wealth or connections, are
not necessarily given opportunity just because they are available. There are vetting processes on
both sides of the film funding equation, both spoken and unspoken, according to the
interviewees. RI24 discussed this when sharing their first production company and what they
were “able to fund before they were fully established” and connected to greater expendable
139

wealth for financing films. I appreciated RI06, who simply encourages investors to keep “going
to Oscar parties and meeting EPs [executive producers] and those production companies that
develop independent films.”
The interviewees reiterated social and human capital and noted that “showing up,” as
stated by RI03, is part of the existing system’s credibility system at play. RI05 and RI12 both
spoke directly to future opportunities and insisted you have to be “in the room.” According to
RI03 and RI12, you have to be “present” on both sides of the equation. As RI16 explained, they
may even have intentions on who would be best for a project, but often someone else “shows up”
at the right time and place and gets the project, highlighting the importance not just of whom you
know but in effect, who knows you and is aware that you are ready for the next steps with which
the investor is looking to move forward. RI20 referred to “showing up” in the sense that they
were doing the groundwork to “help themselves” by creating space where they can be seen or
acknowledged for their potential. RI19 said that few people “actually know what they are doing”
in regard to early career identification, but the more that they try, “the more their efforts will
stick.”
Experience
According to many interviewees, independent film investors are readily available to buy
into an experience for themselves, essentially finding creators who are closest to them to support
via their human and social capital. RI13 shared that this may be the “most thriving trend” in film
funding from their perspective, “investors paying to play for creatives they believe in both above
and below the line.” Six of the 22 interviews directly quoted a filmmaker's past “experience” as
being a key “predictor of [their] potential,” stated RI18. This human and social capital is then
amplified when there is shared institutional knowledge. For example, RI18 mentioned the
140

excitement of creators “who have been through the same programs” they have supported in the
past, similar to relationships from alumni of film schools or even having grown up in the same
town, these sorts of foundational ties were shared across experiences. Shared experiences were
referenced by RI11, RI16, and RI19. According to RI06, investors can try and “knock on the
door of a production company. Or they go to a film festival and say, “Hey! I wanna put some
money into something because I wanna move my way into Hollywood.” They shared that there
are “many investors who want to go to the Oscars,” as quoted by RI05.
This sentiment that investors are looking to buy into an experience was backed by RI05,
who, again, shared from their client list that they “represent numerous investors who are ready
and available for a project if they believe it has Oscar potential” based on the filmmaker and
their team’s award track record. They explained that many of their investors are willing to pay to
play if they can look forward to “red carpet experiences and potential awards season campaigns,”
essentially eventizing their own participatory experience with the film they are supporting.
“Eventizing the [investor] experience” was stated by RI13 and similarly referenced by RI18.
Similarly, RI16 romanticized their reflection of having been involved in those award campaigns
as the best “part of investing in creators.” There was a marketed amount of strategy behind the
interviewees who spoke for themselves and their investor clients as additional potential
investors. The private investor who was personally backing projects was one of two camps, quite
altruistic in supporting a creator's visions, such as RI07, RI11, and RI18. These interviews
believed in creators and felt the importance of creating good work to go out into the world. Or
there were the other investors who these investors were able to see the potential of a future
market and potential campaign as a unique business opportunity, as with RI08, RI13, and RI16.
When discussing their executive producing experience on talent discovery of independent
141

filmmakers, RI16 shared the importance of discovery as both “iterative and intuitive,” allowing
for space to keep improving on finding the right creators for projects as well as inviting them to
find the right investors. Some of the investors were also putting resources into new technologies,
and that helped identify creators for their own future investment opportunities.
Credibility
In many ways, investors are buying in not just for the physical experience but for the
credibility of future opportunities as well, according to the interviews of both RI08 and RI16. In
fact, seven of 22 interviews directly discussed “credibility” as being a key indicator that could
open doors “based on the creator’s [established and viable] credibility,” said RI13. Much like the
filmmakers who are hustling with projects, executive producers are playing a “numbers game,”
said RI13, in many cases, and based on the description of RI09, where they are “investing in a
small slate of films while hoping that one of them will bring them back the credibility” they seek
both in returns and experience. RI08 encouraged the validation of the existing system including
“festivals and marketplaces to ensure that creators are credible.” RI13 shared more about much
of the separation they try to encourage between creative and finances, sharing, “I think the
creatives don’t understand the risks that the investors are facing in an environment of persistent
change.” RI13 expanded by explaining that they “see creatives expecting investors to take
increasing risks with their projects without understanding the climate and increasing shifts in
projects’ potential distribution and monetization.” This sort of understanding of the division
between stakeholder groups was most pronounced when it came to conversations with investors,
often those who represent larger firms or collected funds for organizations, where they were
confident that the creatives “live on a different side of the fence, as stated by RI10” than they did
taking the financial risk, as similarly referenced in the conversations with RI12 and RI14. These
142

individuals who represent large funds saw polarizations, almost “us versus them,” as described
by RI14. The private investors had a more personalized relational quality to how they talked
about their filmmakers and their intention toward finding shared goals, which was shared in the
conversations with RI07, RI09, and RI11.
Pay-to-Play
RI08 emphasized the shift in “technological access” that allows filmmakers to showcase
their work on YouTube, Vimeo, and Reddit to get noticed in a way that is not part of the
traditional system of talent discovery but “ever widening the door for accessibility.” RI13
confirmed, however, that “it costs to pay to play,” and that is how they “established themselves
in their investment career.” RI08 was quite confident that the industry is “very equitable based
on the tools and resources available,” and they were confident that anyone has a chance if they
can just “tell an original story in a new and exciting way” and assume it can also get in front of
them. RI08 also shared how one of their biggest returns on investment came from “someone they
identified on an open-source platform.” They also encouraged me to return when I have a
breakout creator so that they can “take a look at their potential.”
The same shifts that make RI13 and RI15 hesitant for investment returns when it comes
to monetization are both increasing access for visibility and increasing the need to have a project
that “stands out in the marketplace” to be noticed by RI11, as they described. However, both
RI13 expanded on this notion of access by highlighting the increasing number of investors they
work with “who desire filmmakers who will work with them in a pay-to-play model.” RI09
reiterated the pay-to-play as a key ability to get future financing. In such a model, as RI13
explained, the investor is coming in with “strong ties to key players in the project,” whom they
are expecting to be hired as either cast or crew should they fund the project. This requirement for
143

finding and connecting to emerging independent filmmakers circles the data back to key
elements that are imperative to potential investment: human and social capital. RI18 went even
further with their technological developments underway, sharing that “the funding opportunities
themselves are often shared via a literal pay-to-play menu” so investors can buy in for exactly
the experience they need to build their respective credibility accordingly, which can then meet
their investment goals. RI16 encouraged independent filmmakers to be patient and to keep
honing their craft and stories because if “they [their films] are meant to happen, they will.” This
encouragement to be patient from someone in a position of privilege and power with a viable
safety net is less encouraging as pay-to-play is encouraged from all angles. This was quite
contrary to the interviews with established independent filmmakers not included in the above
portion, who are doing everything they can for a follow-up on any financing opportunity.
The Other 28 Interviews on Creator Identification
Here, I think it is important to acknowledge the professional gap in the voices of the
highly established independent filmmakers and other executive producers whose responses I did
not use above. These individuals clarified that they do not always have the ability to be patient,
as prescribed above. These individuals are in every way doing their best and represent a
connection to the hustle in our surveyed independent filmmakers as much as they may have
experience at the decision-making tables. I chose not to include these individuals above because
it became clear that they are not actually the decision maker when it comes to financing. Rather,
these individuals are highly credible, fully validated, usually award-winning creators who are out
there in the industry making independent films. Many of these creators are recognizable names
in entertainment. Many more of these individuals are highly respected C-suite professionals who
have described to me the inequity they see with the decision makers for whom they work, such
144

as with RI46, who shares that their “entire fund is for filmmakers who are considered
underserved,” and still, it is consistently “paid out according to who they already know” based
on previous projects.
RI42 shared insights that “the highest level of high-net-worth individuals [with whom
they work and represent] believe that meritocracy is alive and full well” and that they had
experienced being “shut out of spaces” when they tried to confront the inequities of access to
funding within their own offices. In some cases, they came to me based on this research. Others
were introductions and some I sought out as admirers of their works in the entertainment
industry. RI22 expressed deep concern for “where investors should be looking for creators,” and
in sharing their own story, they said they are “attempting to open more doors based on their
position” but expressed how difficult it can be simply based on capacity to “keep their own
projects up in the air.” RI48 shared that their latest films were “vanity projects” where investors
were just paying to play. They declared they were proud of them but admitted the inequity of
who gets to tell their story. However, with great clarity, RI22 shared that they do not “have the
capacity to open doors for more creatives because [they are having to] hustle so hard”
themselves from one project to another, leaving them “no expendable resources,” physical or
emotional, let alone time to be a part of any change that could address more equitable access for
early career creatives.
RI23 encouraged filmmakers to “embed themselves in the festival circuit and open
themselves up to alternative opportunities,” such as galleries and showcases, to meet potential
investors. RI25 told various stories of getting themselves “out in front of others as a thought
leader and entrepreneur” in the industry, which has opened doors for them. RI32 shared their
experiences in the industry and why they are “shifting over to fine art” (a sentiment shared by
145

RI07 from above), explaining that the “advances in equitable representation in entertainment are
abysmal.” They expressed that art funding is making strides to make a difference, but they do not
see entertainment doing the groundwork it needs to, as it is too caught up with just trying to
make sense of now and not look towards the future.
Similarly, RI24, RI29, RI30, and RI31 shifted their focus when they did not see the
opportunities being viable for them in the ways they were trying within the system. All are
leading new efforts in technology to address more efficient relationship-building between
creatives and investment opportunities. It is interesting to note how many former entertainment
executives, credited as executive producers in entertainment, are now moving into solving
existing systemic problems in entertainment, focusing on solutions for the future. Maybe the
future is brighter for all when it comes to addressing opportunity. Even if RI39 confirms that
there is “no current way to invest wisely in entertainment,” acknowledging that the “data is poor,
and it is all a gamble.” RI42 emphasized the “short history of entertainment and [how] it has
been riding a wave from an original iteration” but has yet to truly open itself up to the
possibilities of comparable industries because of its lack of data collection.
RI38 shared that they may have “found a best way to quantify creators,” but they have
been devastated by the support from fellow creators who are making a difference and have
shifted their focus to actual change makers in the hopes of “returning to the content creators”
with more of their own established financial capital in the game in the future. And RI30 stepped
down from the C-suite space altogether to set up alternative means for talented creators to find
work in “the ever-evolving gig economy.” There is no doubt that creator identification is
complex and ever complicated in the shifting landscape and that it is an apparent hustle for both
146

the artist and the investor, with the greatest advantage being the inequitable reality of the pay-to-
play often being the only pathway towards talent identification progress.
Research Question 2: What Characteristics of an Independent Filmmaker Do Industry
Professionals and/or Investors Value Most for Financial Support?
The following sections present a breakdown and better understanding of how
independent film investors and entertainment industry executives determine the value of an
early-career filmmaker based on their personal and creative characteristics. Based on the
literature and data, there are many resources and tools available to propel an emerging creator
forward in the industry and many steps that an independent filmmaker may take in their career to
become more prominent and potentially valuable to future investors. This question was proposed
from the other side of this decision, asking the investors and industry executives what
characteristics of potential independent filmmakers make them most valuable and viable for their
potential investment and support opportunities.
Entrepreneurship and Business Savvy
According to my very first executive interview, RI01, the filmmakers “need to be an
entrepreneur and understand the business at play [as this] is the most important aspect to
successful creativity.” Five of the 22 interviews spoke directly to “entrepreneurial qualities,” as
quoted by RI18, and 17 of 22 described the importance of the creator's “business mindset,” as
quoted by RI13, or “business savvy,” as quoted by RI14. Business know-how was the most
discussed important characteristic of an independent filmmaker for an investor, based on the
interviews. Entrepreneurship and business savvy came up as themes in 16 of the top 22
interviews. As stated by RI13,
147

[The independent filmmaker] needs to know exactly how much you’re spending above
the line, how much you’re spending below the line, how much you’re spending on
marketing, how much you’re spending on all these things, so you need to really have
your budget mapped out. That’s Number 1.
RI14 expanded on their understanding of the business mindset and perspective of the
independent filmmaker that they “would hope to discover for investment,” explaining that it is
their “ability to learn the business and adapt,” as this is what will open the door to invite
investors, beyond logistics or any creative passion. RI14 also shared that the “filmmaker needs to
stand out to be found for investment,” stating that it is “the same ideas and mindsets that a
business owner needs to have when they’re working on their businesses. The exact same as a
filmmaker. Each film is like its own business.” The importance of “entrepreneurial spirit” and
“creative character” was a consistent part of the responses by RI18. While this was reflected in
the literature, entrepreneurial theory was further emphasized in the interviews, noting that
creators should “not just be entrepreneurial and creative to be able to turn a profit. They need to
have business savvy,” as stated by RI12.
RI13 shared that good independent filmmakers need “to have full comprehension and
understanding of risk.” They encouraged filmmakers to have a good team in place:
You have to have all the legal documentation mapped out. You have to have investors
who have the capital. You have to have a business plan. You have to have a marketing
plan. It’s not just about making the best product, as there are a lot of companies out there
that make a great product and then never sell a dime because that’s not what is
necessarily needed to succeed. You need to have all the pieces mapped out, and the
problem that most filmmakers encounter is that they tend to be creative people. They’re
148

only looking at things from one mindset, and they don’t see it from the business side, and
that’s the reason why, historically, many investors don’t like investing in a film. They
think it is risky.
RI13 asked, “How am I gonna get my money back? So, you need to have a finance plan
in place that spells out exactly how that’s gonna happen.” RI14 encourages filmmakers to think
long-term: “How are the filmmakers gonna turn a profit at the end of the day so they can make
their next film?” According to RI14, the key thing for filmmakers to understand is “that they
need to know their audience.” They need to “know what the investor is concerned about and how
they are going to get their money back. They need a plan to do that. Most filmmakers only have
one plan: how to make their films.” If they can learn past that, RI14 believes” they have great
investment potential. They need to have a plan for how their film is going to make money. They
need a plan for how their film is going to be marketed and how it is going to be seen by as many
people as possible. One can make a great film, but if no one sees it, it does not help at the end of
the day.”
Therefore, as RI10 noted in their respective conversation, “filmmakers need to develop
three plans to succeed in their films: the business plan, the marketing plan, and the distribution
plan.” The “importance of the distribution plan” was reiterated by RI14. For RI13, the reality for
any investment is that it all comes down to “risk, and the more the filmmaker can understand
around that, the better they will stand when it comes to healthy communication with their
investor.” RI17 went on to share that the characteristics have shifted in their experience working
in the industry across the decades. They explained that when they were “earlier [in their career],
the decision makers table was filled with creative executives who had the power to greenlight
ideas, and [from their perspective], now at the same decision-making table, the chairs are all
149

filled with legal representatives and risk analysts and all the creative seats have been removed,”
which has fundamentally “done a great disservice to the content produced in the industry across
the board.” Interestingly, with all of the talk about returns on investment, there seemed little
industry-wide validation that these returns are being tracked to be shared beyond internal
reporting and private calculations. RI02, RI03, and RI05 shared stories of never seeing their
returns ‘based on company fees and percentages,’ and RI24 amplified this with their own
“financing models that do more in regard to last-in investment to ensure returns for them and
their investors.”
From Vision to Execution
RI13 shared that filmmakers need to be able to communicate “a clear vision
authentically.” RI11 then expanded on this idea, sharing that they “value filmmakers that have a
clear understanding of their vision, are motivated to make work, are thoughtful and honest in
their approach to creating and collaborating with others.” RI09 shared that they are “always
looking” for creators who are “unique and bold.” RI19 shared that many of the investors they
represent “just want something truly original but then often fall back into financially supporting
things that may be safer.” RI15 came up against this notion when, earlier in their career, they
also “tried to use adaptive technology to quantify aspects of creativity in early versions of risk
modeling” to invite more equitable representation into the entertainment industry. Like RI17,
RI20 said over the course of their career that “the industry has shifted from creative leadership to
risk management, making it harder for visionaries.” RI15 said this had been “the hardest part [for
them], working on the finance side but wanting to support creative visionaries.” RI09 said it can
often be enough if it is a “cool story told in a very bold way.” They also shared that they are
rarely looking for a script on paper to be produced, but rather, “filmmakers who have some
150

experience sharing their vision and style that can speak to what could come next.” This is
traditionally in the form of existing short films, music videos, or even commercial content. This
was amplified by RI15, who corroborated “the importance of content creation as your [the
creators] brand.”
According to RI07, the individual creator’s “clarity of vision” is of the utmost
importance, as well as their “understanding of their practical budget to bring such a vision to
life,” which was similarly highlighted by RI14 when stating, “their vision speaks to their
potential.” Essentially, many executives shared the importance of the “vision of how
[independent filmmakers] want to execute it, and their level of understanding of the business is
helpful as well,” as confirmed by RI07. Interestingly, while a characteristic of value is based on
previous work, the counter element is something that is often articulated as well: executives and
investors also “want to be hearing from filmmakers whose voices we haven’t heard before, and
we are actively trying to find those diverse voices, those unrepresented voices. from the
filmmaking community,” as shared by RI09, which was reiterated by RI07, RI11, and RI15 with
similarly aligned sentiments. These statements thus represent the consistent Catch-22 of talent
discovery; emerging talent still needs existing content to show their potential for future
investment. Here lives the endogeneity problem with talent discovery. Creators are expected to
have produced content at a comparable level and vision of what they seek investment for, but
investors hope to fund a completely fresh and unique vision while still hoping the creator has
something to show for their potential.
Character and Craft
According to RI12, “technical excellence in their craft” is of the utmost importance and is
vital for every role in a production. Seven of 22 interviews directly quoted the creators
151

‘character’ as being incredibly important in relation to potential investment opportunities. “Each
collaborator needs to be the best one for their part,” said RI15. RI11 also noted that it is “more of
a team measure than any single breakdown by any singular creator on a film team,” going on to
say that “it's an equation of the parts.” RI12 added that “after technical excellence, personality
and demeanor are fundamental.” Specifically, a person could be “the highest skilled, but if no
one likes working with them and they are not kind to be around,” said RI09, it will not benefit
the overall project in the long run, which was also aligned with the thoughts of RI15. RI24 spoke
on these “team player characteristics” and expanded that these are characteristics you learn over
time, making it “more difficult until you have worked with someone in the past.”
While most responses were focused on what could be considered abilities and even
talents, some executives leaned more into personality, including RI12, who considered “humility
and gratitude” as two of the most fundamental personality traits in future collaborators, closing
by highlighting that “integrity is what it all comes down to.” RI13 articulated the “value of
organizational skills and responsibility, highlighted by their passion.” RI15 shared their
experience in trying to “advocate for deeper understanding with research on the creator” and
“better understanding of their [the creator’s] entrepreneurial spirit” and characteristics required
to hustle in the industry. RI19 said that “no one really knows what anyone is looking for,” and
RI16 came back to a heart-centered knowing approach based on “intuition of character.”
Collaboration Is Key
Many of the executives interviewed expressed “the importance of collaboration,” as
stated by RI07. This idea was concluded by seven interviewees. RI11 said a creator’s “ability to
collaborate is a key indicator,” and RI15 stated, “Collaborating is necessary with any
partnership.” RI12 shared that they most value creators who
152

appreciate the process and understand that it’s not a singular art form, and so, we can’t
act like it is. We have to learn to be flexible and dynamic and bend, and, you know, it’s
that whole thing while still managing very strong creative opinions.
RI07 shared an uncomfortable experience that only occurred once in the course of their career in
needing to “take a project away from a creative and redirect the whole project under new
leadership.” RI07 further expressed that this was “one of their most uncomfortable experiences,
but it was necessary before they lost their full investment,” and they went on to describe the
project as being thrown away to mismanagement in front of them, blaming it all “on lack of
experience ultimately.” The understandings shared were that independent filmmaking requires
fluid and trusting collaborative partnerships, where many people bring their best and sometimes
worst to the table, and that they must be able to give and take for the best outcome of the project
and its potential return and monetization. RI20 described it as being “from a financial
standpoint,” declaring that “creatives need to be able to help themselves financially and get
things when they need them, similar to how the investor is coming in with skin in the game.”
This sentiment that the creator is equally at risk as the investor was amplified by statements
made by RI07, RI12, and RI14. Most executives shared that they were “not interested in
controlling any independent filmmakers’ projects or creative vision,” as stated by RI12, and
would, rather, want “to be valuable stewards of the business venture as a whole,” said RI14,
especially based on their level of experience and having been through the process many times
from development to distribution. These were consistent sentiments based on the shared
experiences of RI07, RI14, and RI16. This sentiment was best shared by RI12:
If we’re working together, then it can be a really fun environment. You can produce
things that you wouldn’t have thought were possible because people come to the table
153

with their own ideas. If you wanna do exactly what you wanna do, then do it alone, and if
not, then learn to bend. And you know, if you wanna go fast, go alone. If you want to go
far, go with others, so that’s a big part of it for me.
Familial Relationships
RI13 shared that investors like themselves need to believe that they are in “good hands”
with the creative partner. Many of the executives gave comparisons of having a “creative baby,”
as referenced by RI08, or the film as your “baby,” as stated by RI14. And the things you must do
to understand the project and/or product as “your baby,” said RI07, is to make it successful, like
you “would want for your own family.” Additionally, many referenced the creative team as a
“family,” as did RI11 and “building family,” as stated by RI09 when speaking about their
creative community and sharing the intimate nature of independent film collaboration. This
perspective that collaboration and characteristics required in an independent film may be more
relational and even familial than transactional, requiring healthy relationships for ultimate
success, was a theme that came up in multiple interviews. Six interviewees directly referenced
these familial relationships.
Similarly, many executives described “intuition” when it came to ideal characteristics,
including RI08, RI13, and RI16. These executives shared their heavy reliance on intuition when
it came to knowing who would “be right for a creative collaboration” and “appropriate” for
future investment. RI08 described the “intuitive knowing” of the ideal characteristics to “a
symphony and sound mix with just the right notes.” RI09 also ascribed to “inclusivity” in the
characteristics, which has pushed their producing to make adjustments, specifically describing
working with some differently abled filmmakers, how they “are making adjustments to previous
sets, and how it can be done if everyone can align with the intention and just look at things a
154

little differently and commit to it.” RI13 shared that the relationships between investors and the
independent filmmakers are much like the “connective tissue” that needs to be healthy for the
project to work, “each doing their own part, keeping things together for the whole.” This
connective tissue was a welcome description, as we started the research describing the creatives
as having and sustaining the energy around the planets in a galaxy, both benefiting from the
other. RI02 explained that it is their “ideas that will get them in the room to be a part of this
[their giant corporations] family of financiers.”
RI16 specifically defined the most important characteristic of the independent filmmaker
when considering them for future investment is their “heart” and shared that this is often
understood and interpreted in regard to how they “communicate authentically with purpose and
drive and can be heard in the voice.” RI16 claimed characteristics of “being known most
positively through intuition and a keen connection to being open to what shows up at the right
time and place for a production.” In essence, best-laid plans for their process are, in effect, more
in flow with the process than planning the details in advance, which does contrast with the
previous statements about the filmmaker having a detailed plan and strategy in place. RI15 spoke
to the characteristic importance and value, stating that “it all comes down to being able to
manage and maintain healthy relationships with investors.” Similarly, RI16 spoke to wanting
“the best for a project in a way that encouraged their position as an investor to be one who
stewards a project and its filmmaker to their fullest potential.” RI18 talked about their
filmmakers “as family in a way that they want the best for them” and hope to be involved in
future collaborations. While the notions begin with business and strategy, the conversations
seemed to consistently flow to the flexibility and relational qualities between the creators and
their potential investors.
155

The Other 28 Interviews on Characteristics
What above ranges from entrepreneurial spirit to characteristics driven by intuition and
heart-knowing becomes reframed when most of the following interviewees, in effect, described
other filmmakers as well as their own value for investment. When it came to the conversations of
these other 28 interviewees who are hustling their own films, the majority expressed the need to
be resilient and problem solving along the way. RI37 shared how they are always “showing up as
the hardest working person in the room, and often it costs them money to solve problems on the
projects.” RI28 explained that they “have to keep showing up because no one is necessarily
leaving space for them if they aren’t physically in the room.” RI36 shared that there have been
many rooms or tables that they have been invited into in what has felt “like tokenism, but they
have been able to position [their] institutional knowledge in a way to leverage funds for future
projects.” RI40 similarly referenced tokenism and how they have had to “reposition accordingly”
to manage and “move forward.” Both shared different experiences that were uncomfortable but
reflective of the industry at large.
Similarly, RI46 shared that “diversity, as a characteristic, has become problematic to
systemic change.” RI49 shared how they have “advocated for change and equity for more
opportunity for others but have also seen the other side” of the tokenism and racism that has been
at play with siloed initiatives. RI28 shared how much slower the experience has been for them in
“trying to create more equity, even within their own respective projects.” RI25 spoke a lot about
“the energy they bring that makes people want to work with them again.” RI27 talked about the
“persistent and tireless effort” to keep at it despite feeling as though, and RI28 stated that “all of
the odds are against them.” RI27 talked about “always bringing their A-game and being prepared
however possible to support a project.” RI22 shared that “the best filmmakers, the ones that they
156

want to work with again and again, and the ones who are the most underrated are the ones who
are with the project in the beginning, the middle, and the end.”
RI43 acknowledged “effort as the underlying characteristic that they have seen creators
find success with,” which invites funders to acknowledge them. RI22 went on to share that “it is
those filmmakers who will do the campaign with you, show up at all the press events, go to the
dinners and photo ops and promote the film wherever possible; those are the creatives you need
to be investing in for the long game, and those are the qualities and characteristics that are hard
to know in advance without really knowing a person.” But when those people are family, RI22
says that “they are all in with them because they truly understand what goes into this as a
career.” RI42 shared how “difficult the journey has been as an advocate for change to even talk
about how characteristics are not currently framed as equitable equations.” RI42 noted that when
“certain creators are simply given more opportunity, they are set up for success, and when other
creators only have one chance, they may seem less-than when in fact, they simply had less
opportunity.” And as RI42 confirms, in the entertainment industry, “chances are fully backed by
access to financing.”
Research Question 3: What Experiences Are Industry Professionals and/or Investors
Looking for When It Comes to Identifying Independent Filmmakers for Discovery and
Investment?
The following sections share an essential breakdown and better understanding of how
independent film investors and entertainment industry executives understand and potentially
value the experiences and work that an early career creative may have done previously. Based on
the literature and the data, there are a myriad of ways independent filmmakers are encouraged to
pursue their careers. It is, in many ways, the concept of meritocracy (McNamee & Miller, 2018).
157

Filmmakers are told to create more films and have content that speaks to their original voice and
vision. They are encouraged to have had festival success and have walked through the gauntlets
of agencies, entertainment lawyers, and the distribution experience, all before initial investment
opportunities. Filmmakers are encouraged to have solid experiences from film education,
working on numerous student films, working in an agency's mailroom, working in writers’
rooms, and having an abundant social media following. Filmmakers are encouraged to keep
creating beyond their films, including online channels with micro-content, podcasts, and
engaging web series, as well as branded content experiences to ensure they can tell a story.
Essentially, everything they could do is encouraged. However, this question was intended to
deconstruct what work, essentially which efforts matter in relation to how filmmakers might
pursue their creative career goals and how that might relate to their potential value for a possible
independent film investor and/or entertainment industry executive who would have the decision
making power to support or invest in their original IP.
Credibility
RI10 shared that “the two most important characteristics are experience and
trustworthiness.” Logistically speaking, RI08 suggested that “anyone seeking investment” should
have “at least one feature film already under their belt.” According to RI06, the “characteristics
are compiled in their credits and past projects.” They shared that, as an investor, the
characteristics they seek are simply being “Oscar nominees or Sundance alumni.” RI10 shared
that they generally “compare past work to identify if they are of the same size, scale, and scope”
and how those were executed in comparison to the “budget being sought for a current project.”
RI09 shared that they “work with a number of first-time feature filmmakers, so the experience
they seek is not traditionally having done the process before, but, rather, tertiary experiences that
158

make them best to tell the story.” They shared that it is “helpful if they have made short films
and/or branded content before, but, at the end of the day, they consider whether they, as an
investor, feel confident this is the right storyteller for the project.” Additionally, RI07 shared that
“experience builds the characteristics they look for when it comes to funding, meaning what they
believe they have learned from funding films over the years. The more experience, the more of
the characteristics and qualities a filmmaker will likely have established through actual
production experience.” Although the closed with, “however, that is not always the case in
[their] experience.”
Much of the experience as credibility also comes with “having aspects of potential
projects already in place,” according to RI16. RI07 stated that “distribution needs to be in place
before financing because of current trends for companies to produce internally over the act of
purchasing the product after the fact from the creators.” RI24 has built their “new funding model
from [this] engagement in distribution agreements,” believing that this addresses equity for
creators because, according to them, “most anyone can get a letter of intent from a streaming
platform before they create their project,” then set the stage for where they come in to invest,
ensuring the creator knows how to take these steps towards potential returns on investment
before they are willing to invest. This harkens back to the entrepreneurial spirit and business
savvy filmmakers are expected to have, as referenced by RI07, RI14, and RI16. For RI14,
If you can provide a track record of how you’ve done on your films or/and to show that
you’ve succeeded financially on your films or and then you’ve held onto the budget, you
know, that’s always. Another concern is that investors are concerned about the
filmmakers, and without experience, they are gonna blow through their budget. So, even
if it’s a first-time filmmaker or first-time director, the investor wants assurance again.
159

On the same thought, RI07 shared their “own struggles investing in filmmakers who had
experience turned out to not be enough, and they were not able to execute with a new team.”
Having extensive experience as credibility put them in a very expensive situation, stated RI07,
“The experience, in this case, had no merit on their ability to execute.” RI11 had shared similar
concerns on quantifying a creator when the equation is “in the group of creatives, each best at
their own respective role and each working off the energy, talent, and trustworthiness of the
connections between the group collaborating.” RI04 talked a lot about “how the organizations
are the best vetting of experience because if they have been through the labs and fellowships,
they will have been cultivated with intentional development towards an efficient production
mindset.” RI08 was confident that “short films are always enough.” And RI09 shared that
“credibility can be in a parallel or side hustle that adds value to the originality of the potential
project.”
Accountability
Six of the 22 interviewees went into greater detail on the importance of accountability
when it comes to valuing creators. RI07 shared stories of when “experience did not match up,”
and they “pivoted to the importance of reading one’s intuition” on whether they are a match and
will be accountable for the project. According to many of the executives interviewed, having the
industry at large be “aware of a filmmaker and their work speaks not only to credibility but also
to accountability and follow-through on your projects.” This accountability through network was
referenced by RI06, RI10, and RI13. According to RI07, these “stories of not being able to
follow through or causing more trouble than was worth, including drama, complicated
relationships, going over budget, or being complicated to work with, all communicate whether or
not people want to work with that person again.” RI06 went into great detail regarding “the
160

importance of the investor having confidence that a filmmaker knows what they are getting into”
and have some foundational knowledge and experience:
They want to know that you know what to do when, you know, the talent’s flight has
been canceled. You’ve got a 1-day shoot in Canada and/or money falls out, or
distribution dates change, or there’s, you know, a car accident. You’ve got insurance. I
mean every crazy thing that, you know, the 100 things that can go wrong in a movie.
They want to know that you know what you are doing.
According to RI10, the team a creator “built up in their previous experiences speaks the most to
their potential and worth.” The creators who ultimately expand their social capital are, in many
ways, what is being invested in because that is their reach and scope that the next project may
benefit from. RI04 shared stories of “the people a creator knows and works with coming through
to save the day as needed.” According to RI16, a creator’s “ability to speak authentically from
their heart will reflect truth about how they can execute their vision and provide insight into their
ability to follow through based on their own intentions.”
Hard Work
The encouragement from executives that hard work brings opportunity came up
repeatedly. According to RI06, “Same story, going back 50 years. Got a job as a PA. Three
weeks later, I was DP on a project. I met the VP, and there you go. This is just how the movie
business is.” Five of the 22 interviewees stated that “hard work” was an indicator of “what a
filmmaker is worth,” according to RI13. For RI07, “the final creative execution exemplifies the
hard work: what the filmmakers can show for their hard work.” RI09 shared that “sometimes it is
the life work that the creator has been involved with that makes them the perfect creator for the
project. It may not be traditional experience that speaks to the work but how they have come to it
161

by way of life experiences that make them valuable.” RI08 had encouraged filmmakers “to have
at least one feature.” Their alternative to that was that anyone seeking investment who does not
have a feature “should have a dozen short films with content online that can speak to the
creator’s aesthetic and ability to complete work at a minimum.”
RI13 also discussed the concept of “pay-to-play as hard work,” sharing that having
creators above or below the line funding their own careers was frowned upon just as recently as
in the past decade. They acknowledged that “it [pay-to-play] has always been present, but it used
to be frowned upon as common practice.” However, when it comes to current projects they are
investing in, many of the opportunities are being made in pay-to-play models. As RI13 shared, it
is “becoming increasingly common for creators to front the bill of major productions they know
will showcase their talents and hard work, making way for future opportunities.” RI13 stated that
they’ve “seen investors who have followed on from that model [pay-to-play]. And now we’re
seeing more and more investors who understand that there’s potentially something they can get
out of it for their personal creative careers or the creators whom they support in their network.”
What were previously only called vanity projects are increasingly being considered wise
investments by creatives in creatives. RI19 expressed an observation of “a number of creatives
who are raising money to make an impact in the industry in a variety of ways so that they can get
future opportunities for funding.”
Flexibility and Flow
Even with all the planning and projections, RI16 shared, “I always say that it’s a range
[the budget], right? It’s a target, and I never beat up a filmmaker when they actually say I need
more because something else is showing up.” Eight interviewees made reference to “the
flexibility,” as stated by RI11, of a creator and or “the flow to go with it all,” as stated by RI04 in
162

their responses. RI11 was clear that “previous experience does not necessarily reflect in any way
what a creator is capable of.” And RI16 was confident that “intuition could be the greatest
indicator of experience for a filmmaker being the perfect fit for investment.” Where RI07
referenced the flow when it comes to working with filmmakers and supporting their projects:
[It is] like riding a wave, you know, hopefully, hopefully, by the time you set out, and by
the time it crashes, like everything’s a perfect storm, and you know where you will end
up on shore, but a lot of times that’s not necessarily what happens.
However, despite all of the preparation and planning, many interviewees referenced “the
gamble,” as called out by RI13, or that the industry “attracts a lot of gamblers,” noted RI07. RI16
shared that “there is a telling aspect to how much a creator cares about their work that will
translate into their ability to bring themselves to the project to the best of their ability.” An aspect
of the flow that was articulated was “tenacity,” called out by RI07 when they shared, “It takes a
certain type of person to stay, to stick with it, and to, you know, to actually weather all of these
crazy storms.” Some of this very notion was reflective of how many major executives stepped
away from their positions of authority to pursue what they described as more effective ways to
do business outside of the current entertainment industry processes and practices. When it came
to describing best practices, if someone had not been active in the industry recently, RI04 would
question their own “credibility to speak to current best practices,” noting how the industry is ever
evolving. This was reflected in the business ventures of RI13, RI18, RI24, and RI33, who each
respectably addressed improving best practices and, in some cases, directly “addressing
[equitable] film financing opportunities,” as stated by RI08.

163

Risk and Returns
RI16 shared that “many risks can be outside the independent filmmakers themselves.”
Rather, these lie in the systems with which they are associated, from agents to previous financial
and legal obligations, which can hinder a future project. Most of the executives and investors
with whom I spoke mentioned the importance of having experience bringing return on
investment. Six interviewees directly referenced “risk and return” as it related to the creators’
experience. The relation to risk and return to institutional and tacit knowledge, based on
experience, was referred to by both RI15 as being “fundamental to mitigating risk” and,
according to RI18, “the best indicator of reduced risk.” RI20 also referred to the risk the investor
themselves can bring “if they aren’t a good match.” Similarly, RI16 and RI33 both shared
experiences of having partnered with unsavory investors. And RI13 spoke directly to “a team
that has experience packaging projects and connecting to the appropriate funding to get a
positive ROI for all involved.” As RI14 shared,
Even if you made a short, you know. Let’s say you didn’t do that much beforehand, but
you made a short film where you had some success, you know, and maybe wasn’t that
popular, whatever it was, but you made it for $1,000, and it grossed $10,000. Well, that’s
a 10x return on your investment. So, even though it’s small, that shows that you’re
capable, and you’re also catering to your audience right, which is the investor.
Additionally, RI14 went on to further explain,
So, even if it’s a first-time filmmaker or first-time director, the investor wants assurance
again. The level of risk that is reduced by saying, “Okay? Well, yes, you might be a first-
time director, but you have an assistant director who, you know, has done 10 films,
right?” And that gives a measure of assurance to the investor, knowing, okay, now this
164

project is already less risky than it was yesterday. So, those are the kind of things that
investors are looking for.
The Other 28 Interviews on Experience
In response to experience, RI27 spoke of “a career that spans a long lifetime of doing the
work, hustling in all ways, but still not having the leverage to self-finance.” RI25, RI26, and
RI28 spoke of their own projects that they self-financed and how these will further validate them
as industry professionals and get them in front of more investors, further examples of the hustle
at all levels. RI35 shared that they are “working on new production models that can invite more
equitable financing, and how it is empowering more of the collaborators involved with more
credible experience on the productions.” RI22, RI24, RI31, and RI45 described their experience
as it relates to hustle, constantly pushing themselves forward and “ever validating and proving
themselves to executives who just want the lowest risk in the current entertainment industry
climate” Almost all of the 28 interviewees exclaimed exhaustion and fatigue from having to
“prove themselves constantly,” as stated by RI31. RI26, RI37, and RI44 shared how the hustle
put them in uncomfortable positions at times, especially financially, when they were expected to
“put their own funds into projects to prove they have skin in the game,” as RI44 said. RI37
shared that “the need to self-fund at times can be an expectation when you are working on
projects you believe in early on.” RI46 shared that the “lack of authority figures being able to
acknowledge their effort and hustle has been the impetus for them leaving positions” that offered
some power or authority in the industry in certain circumstances.
Additionally, most of these interviewees also confirmed that “creativity suffers in the
hustle,” as quoted by RI33. As RI47 noted, “creators who are left with little opportunity are
being set up to fail because of the system that does not acknowledge their effort.” They further
165

expressed that their “best successes [were] when someone believed in them or stepped up to take
a chance on them.” RI22 said they could see what is possible “if people [were to] believe in
creatives.” They went on to share that from their perspective, “there are very few, like a crazy
few creatives, 5 maybe, who get to actually make whatever they want to make whenever they
want. RI22 acknowledged that “they have only been able to do what they have done because
they always had a safety net. They knew they would never starve or be homeless, so they could
always take that risk.” RI29 shared that they, like RI22, “had a partner with a job that allowed
them to take that one creative step further because they had the support of both family and
friends who would be there for them if it all fell apart.” And finally, RI42 shared an incredibly
unique perspective from the table of quite possibly one of the most legacy names in
entertainment, “having worked alongside them for a full career, that even [that legacy creative],
who undoubtedly is a visionary, even they were only able to execute on their idea because of the
support that they were allotted.” RI42 shared that, “yes, they are a visionary filmmaker and
uniquely creative, but they were only able to produce their ideas because of the incredible
amount of support they received from their direct network,” as both human and social capital,
“and access to financing that made their unique visions possible.”
Summary
According to the findings, the organizations are doing much of the legwork when it
comes to developing emerging talent and organizing networking and talent discovery
opportunities. The organizations essentially exist as the initial gatekeepers that allow elite
investors and executives to connect with early career creatives. Acknowledging that this system
is effective for an elite few, it is hard not to see that it has not scaled with content creation or its
creators. From the investor perspective, the organizations are some of the most nascent stages of
166

an emerging filmmaker’s creative career. Based on previous research, filmmakers may be
working their way up to this support space for up to a decade before these are considerable
opportunities.
Independent filmmakers are focused on the work of producing and developing content to
be viable for financial investment, but the scale of who is creating versus where they have viable
access to meaningful connections is extremely restricted. Where the investor meets the curation
suggests the importance of these art organizations and their position in the holistic health of the
entertainment industry. However, an awareness that they need to scale to meet the marketplace
demand is important. The hands-on experience that early career creatives and independent
filmmakers gain is of the utmost value when considering investment in future projects, which is
aligned with the survey results and speaks to the creatives’ institutional knowledge of the
industry. The more credibility the creators can garner with this experience, the more viable they
become to the investor. This, however, is not necessarily fully corroborated by the survey results,
as less than half of those surveyed considered the film festivals to be helpful to their creative
career goals and efforts toward them. This may reflect size and scale versus opportunities via
these programs.
When it comes to the creator, there is an overabundance and confidence that the more
entrepreneurial the independent filmmaker is, the more potential investment is out there for them
if they do the work and pay for it upfront. The belief seems to exist from both the creative and
the financial side. There are aspects of both growth mindset and grit research (head and heart)
that collaborate and back up this entrepreneurial spirit, as reflected in the survey results. The
independent filmmaker’s entrepreneurial spirit should essentially be manifested in the practice of
their essential hustle to share their creative vision through any number of ways, including short
167

films and branded content. Their previous projects and creative work should speak to their future
vision, according to the executives and decision makers. However, the level to which the creators
are able to rise seems to leave them essentially out of sight to investors, based on the interviews.
Execution, even at a small scale, can speak a great deal to an independent filmmaker’s
ability to see their vision through from ideation to execution to distribution. This was also
concluded in the hustle as filmmakers pursued producing and then developing their content. A
filmmaker’s ability to complete their projects and grow their creative community is also a
testament to their character and aligns with what most independent filmmakers reported. The
executive and investor interviewees spoke of being drawn to people who are simply good to
work with and those with exceptional talent and skill. The perfect combination seems to be both
of these things, with the established filmmakers who are still hustling confirming that they are
still often expected to carry the financial burdens of films before the investors take their projects
seriously. These results were less of the majority but still reflected in the answers on the survey
in relation to the filmmakers’ growth mindset. The interviewees related the importance of
collaboration, directly between the investor and the filmmaker, and/or their ability to build teams
and expand their human and social capital networks from one project to another. Many of the
investors and executives spoke of the relationships in a very familial way, sharing the personal
nature that this work can encapsulate.
When it comes to experience, filmmakers are, for the most part, expected to have shorts
and branded content to speak to their ability to execute their creative visions and may be
expected to have already completed a feature film or a slate of projects that can determine their
experience and ability in terms of comparable size, scale, and scope. It is then helpful that
filmmakers highly value developing and producing content. There is a notion here that you better
168

love it because you will be expected to do it long before you will be helped along the way. The
expectation is also that filmmakers are fully accountable, good to work with, and have worked
their way up. For most interviewees, the weight of previous work and intuitive knowing was
quite balanced. Yes, there was an aspect that creators needed to have done the work and made
comprehensive plans for moving forward. However, many interviewees relied on existing
relationships, intuitive knowing, and gut feelings to make executive decisions and invest in
early-career filmmakers. This delineation from quantifiable projects and gut-knowing or heart-
knowing makes it hard to fully examine why some creators get opportunities over others,
increasing the vagueness in decision making and ultimately increasing the difficulty for
independent filmmakers to understand exactly how to position themselves within an invisible
and highly theoretical talent pipeline.
Based on the survey and interview results, a more comprehensive and comprehensible set
of data interests me in the future to improve decision making when it comes to talent discovery.
While the risk was discussed in great detail in all aspects of the interviews, the rewards of being
the executive and/or investor that made an early career discovery seemed to relate to those that
referenced gambling and pay-off. If more comprehensive data might increase the odds of
discovery, it is the recommendation based on the findings to discuss what this might look like
upon deeper reflection. Based on the research findings, doing the work, the hustle, through
various means is of the utmost importance. However, the tangible data that reflects the work is
what the study finds inconclusive, as few decision makers or investors seem to be utilizing
quantifiable data. This leads one to suggest that more trackable data of the efforts should be
quantified more effectively to help investors make more holistic decisions based on more
inclusive and holistic data tracking. Should the level of data increase, it may further increase the
169

odds of success, reducing the risk for emerging talent and ultimately increasing the potential ROI
of independent filmmakers and the content creator’s original IP.
Further, based on the research findings and the survey results, there seems to be a divide
regarding what is described as access and where opportunity begins. Conceptually, this means
the space between the filmmaker and the investor in Figure 1 is actually much wider. They are
essentially standing much farther apart from one another. For example, independent filmmakers
are pursuing several efforts in their hustle, as referenced in the survey. However, many of these
efforts live below the effectual level of acknowledgement that investors consider a first threshold
for financial opportunity consideration. For many creators and executives with decision-making
experience, there are inequities in who has access to financing.
Still, according to many investors, everyone has a chance if they can just show up and do
the work to prepare, acknowledged as much easier said than done by established creators who
are actively hustling. This idea that the work is available to all is perceived very differently
depending on one’s position and direct access to financing. There was agreement that
filmmaking costs money, and creators need support to make projects. How creators achieve their
opportunities is a multifaceted grid of character, effect, and experience connected to one’s
human and social capital. This research may help encourage a deeper and more meaningful
conversation on what access and equitable opportunity look like in a more transparent talent
pipeline for the future of independent filmmakers and content creators when it comes to access to
financing for their creative projects.
170

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The following and final chapter reflects on the literature review and the data analysis
results, weaving together the findings of both the qualitative interviews and the collected
quantitative survey results and bounces these research concepts and reflections, simultaneously
influenced by experiences, education, and understandings of the ever-changing and challenging
dynamics that make up the independent film landscape, within the larger entertainment industry
for recommendation on improving practice and process.
Chapter Five re-examines the study literature and findings through the theoretical
frameworks of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model to make recommendations from the whole of
the research across the complex and connected landscape as it relates to creative destruction,
competency modeling, and human and social capital. It also looks at the importance of the
filmmaker’s connections and the value that can be cultivated through their head, heart, and
personal hustle. The research found that access to financing and connections to existing
financing opportunities are the most important factors in determining success for independent
filmmakers. It is suggested that a better understanding of access to opportunities and the value
models for financing viability within them could reduce risk and increase profit margins on
investments of these early career creatives. The recommendations are to imagine how this might
be possible.
Discussion of Findings
Based on the findings, several themes originally identified in the literature review tie into
the conceptual frameworks presented herein. The literature review explored research on
independent filmmakers and aspects of talent discovery that were foundationally based on the
following theoretical frameworks.
171

Ecological Overview Across Findings
Framing the findings within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model allows for scalable
recommendations based on the results. Based on the survey and interview results, the importance
of the filmmaker embracing their unique potential as an individual is of the utmost importance
(Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Epstein, 2021; Ferrari, 2020). Interviewees acknowledged individual
characteristics, such as trustworthiness, humility, gratitude, and being pleasurable to work with
(Cadigan, 2021; Grant, 2021), were indicators of access to financial opportunities. The individual
creator’s credibility and accountability also had a lot to do with their character, as did their
entrepreneurial spirit had much to do with their growth mindset (Dweck, 2015; Ferrari, 2020;
LaPorte, 2017; Mehta, 2017).
While the filmmaker may exhibit a strong growth mindset and a degree of passion and
perseverance in their effort, the habituated hustle that further defines them is something that can
be developed. For example, based on the interviews, the more a creator can exhibit that they
have their own unique, bold, and visionary way of creating content, the more they may showcase
their ability to be credible for future and further investment, as was shared by RI09 and RI18.
The creator’s very uniqueness (Epstein, 2021; Spigel, 2021) as an individual, as defined by
Bronfenbrenner (2005), critically articulates the creator’s ability to catalyze their own trajectory
(Diamandis, 2015) out into the varying degrees of the ecological framework. The individual in
the ecological framework is embodied by both the research of the head as well as the heart. The
steps then that work the creator farther out in their respective career trajectory beyond the
ecological framework embody the head and the heart as well as all the ways the creator
habituates their respective hustle (LaPorte, 2017; Mehta, 2017), further defining them as having
172

entrepreneurial spirit (DeFillip et al., 2009; Ferrari, 2020; Spigel, 2021), a common theme in the
research findings.
The immediate human capital of the creator, as seen in the microsystem of
Bronfenbrenner’s model, speaks to the creator’s ability to grow and expand their network. The
network was incredibly important across the interviews as well as understood in the literature.
The network is another critical component of the individual filmmaker being able to have
success in connecting to opportunities for financing. The more often creators can engage with
other artists and content creators and build their immediate network, the more human and social
capital they have within the immediate and scalable microsystem. As this relates to their
influence on the microsystem, the more a filmmaker can assure their immediate collaborators
that they are reliable, trustworthy, and exhibit entrepreneurial spirit within and on behalf of their
original intellectual property ideas and productions, the more accountable and credible they will
appear beyond the microsystem. Additionally, with every project, job, volunteer effort, and
momentum built from their habituated hustle, especially when that effort requires collaboration,
the more independent filmmakers will expand and grow beyond the microsystem, ever
increasing their presence in the mesosystem.
According to Bronfenbrenner, the mesosystem is where they may meet and begin to
collaborate with more established teachers and mentors, as well as interface directly with
regional and local film festivals that showcase their works. The more projects they become
involved with and collaborators with whom they create, the more they exist on open-source
platforms where creators share and exhibit work that may have the potential to reach beyond
their own network and connect them to further networks. Investors interviewed acknowledged
the reliance on these experiences as indicators for talent identification as well as reduced risk on
173

investment in emerging creators. The exhibition of their work at regional and local festivals thus
expands their reach and social webs, amplifying their human and social capital while
emboldening their institutional knowledge at this level of the ecological model, as referenced by
RI19 and RI33. The curators, tastemakers, and “programmers [at such events] are then often
associated with more elite labs and fellowships” that extend into the exosystem, shared RI04.
Here, as the creators become visible in the exosystem, potentially being acknowledged by
more elite curators and programmers and connected to recommending curation at more
prestigious festivals, events, and exhibitions, the creators expand their network of who is aware
of their work and effort. The exosystem is the most nascent stage of talent identification from the
investor perspective, a string theme across the executive and investor interviews. As it relates to
the hypothetical talent pipeline, the bottom of that pipeline, as seen by investors, the exosystem,
is the ground floor. It is the space both above and below the water’s surface. In relation to the
iceberg visual, it may be the exosystem, where creators may become visible or just visible
enough to potentially become discovered as viable for investment. These more highly curated
events at this level are often associated with the agencies and distributors who represent the
creators who will be introduced to the larger studios and networks that make up the
macrosystem, where they officially may begin to exist and grow above the surface, at a level
where they have their own leverage and decision-making power as a creative.
The macrosystem in this ecological model exists above the surface of the hard work and
is often where the ultimate financial decision makers and independent film investors who can
greenlight content and facilitate financing opportunities exist. The macrosystem is the
expansiveness of Bronfenbrenner’s model, but in many ways, it’s the beginning of the work of
the investors whom this research interviewed. Their perspective, as described in their interviews,
174

seems to look down into the exosystem of talent identification but has little to no involvement
with the layers below it. Here, it is clearly understood when trying to explain the emerging
creator and under-supported artists. RI02 stated directly, “The artists which you [the researcher]
advocate for are of the least importance.” While seemingly a harsh statement, from this
ecological perspective, it makes an incredible amount of practical and pragmatic sense. The
creators for whom I, the researcher, advocate have a tremendous amount of work via their hustle,
imaginably thanks to their head and heart, to break through the systemic structures around them
before they are going to be viable for the investor looking for a strategic investment in talent
discovery based on existing valuation models.
Creative Destruction meets Micro and Macro Innovation
Initially, there is the research on creative destruction and the seminal work of Schumpeter
(1042) and his theories on innovation, which align with Diamandis (2020), which describes
entrepreneurship as reorganizing and restructuring innovations to create new and advanced
ventures (Elkington, 2020), and how it relates to talent discovery in the creative global workforce
(Cadigan, 2020). The interviewees noted there are tools and resources being developed to
identify filmmakers that help elevate the experience for industry executives and professionals,
but there is little evidence messaged by executives that these tools are available or quantify the
early career creatives (Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Eddy & Eddy, 2021; Ferrari, 2020). For this,
the art organizations are fundamentally the only space that highlights and develops creators, with
film schools and film festivals being acknowledged by the investors to identify potential
emerging talent (Haine & Edelman, 2020).
Additionally, several interviewees were actively involved in building adaptive
technologies to the entertainment industry’s problems to address these issues, including equity
175

and earlier career access. RI24 is directly building a finance solution connected to the evolution
of the distribution landscape. RI30 is directly involved in financing a solution for corporate
identification of early career talent. RI31 and RI33 are developing various forms of content-
creation tools and resources. RI07 is seeking to solve financing issues related to film distribution,
and RI18 is involved in creators being connected to more equitable financing opportunities. All
of these efforts are encouraging. Based on the research study herein, there is still innovation
needed to identify creators earlier on than the exosystem of Bronfenbrenner’s model.
Creators are making tangible efforts, for example, through various development and
skills training programs. However, most of these are not being tracked by the decision-making
level of executives or investors in the industry. If these were considered as validations or
credentials, it could be possible to track their earlier work. The recommendation based on the
findings is to open a database to acknowledge the individual and track their efforts as low as the
microsystem and valuate their efforts that begin expanding into the mesosystem. These data
points could be added to databases used readily by the industry, or an alternative database could
be built. The metrics need to shift the perspective of the creator to acknowledge them and their
head, heart, and hustle as valuable and trackable data considerations.
These points of entry could be considered in the proposed competency model version,
acknowledging growth mindset, grit, passion, perseverance, and tangible hustle efforts in and
around a creator’s career trajectory. A competency model could be used for investors to consider
talent before they have major studio and/or box-office-level credits. Earlier career opportunities
need to be considered for content creators and filmmakers for access to opportunities for their
original intellectual property projects.

176

Organizational Support Models
RI07 shared that the only real way to establish credibility with early career filmmakers is
to view them via their experiences within established art organizations. Still, RI04 said that the
sales coming from the organizations and their events have been dismal since COVID-19, making
it hard for creators to be encouraged. However, there seems to be an open door for emerging
technology, ongoing innovation, and creative destruction that could help qualify and credit early
career creatives with some measure of credibility and accountability (Atcheson, 2018; Hunt,
Ramon, & Shim, 2019) at earlier stages of the ecological model. While the sales of their projects
may slow, might it be possible that these creators could be building their innate value for future
investment instead of relying on the older model that requires that they start anew with each
individual film venture? The organizations are an ideal and proven method of supporting
creators. However, their model needs to scale to meet the demand of both creators entering the
gig economy as well as the marketplace thirst for content. If these models are able to grow at
scale, they would be ideal to support more effectual curatorial needs with investors' support
practice at present. Again, the idea isn’t to burn the house down, the over-simplified pre-
technology assumption of creative destruction, but rather build out a more interoperable model
that could scale with the marketplace thanks to existing models of creator support that have been
effective.
RI22 stated that “access is incredibly inequitable,” yet all they can recommend with
assurance is to keep creating. Again, as RI18 noted, these “potential future tools” being
developed need to be able to “harmonize with existing systemic structures” in place in the
industry if we are to expect any mass adoption. RI12 discussed the “empathy gap” in regard to
various tools and them only really being developed to sell to the major corporations. RI18 shared
177

that “real effective tools for discovery are only beginning to show up in the marketplace,” as
resources have been to reorganize already established filmmakers in positions of prominence. As
told by RI15, “No one is going to collect the data if no one is going to pay them to do so.”
The recommendation is to incentivize the limited liability and reduced risk of early career
creators’ future investment potential as based on steps exhibited in the habitual hustle much
deeper below the surface than the exosystem, which is presently seen as the ground floor of
investment viability. Still, might collating the data of earlier career efforts together with the
acknowledgement of the creators’ previous works invite new valuations of the individual creator
as it applies to potential financing opportunities? Much like the adaptation of the resume evolved
via the technological shift with LinkedIn, the creator competency model could exist as a database
with varying levels of exhibiting not only work but creative career outputs, social media weight,
followers, examples of marketing campaigns, access to previous crowdfunding campaigns and
peer to peer positive affirmation that someone with whom you have been credited in the past
wants to work with you again; a competency model for the creator in the gig economy.
Competency Models for Filmmaking Talent
The literature explored some information and research on various forms of competency
modeling, which rates skills as values to give data points to each respective value (Page, 2017)
and the potential biases that can be inherent to this kind of metric qualifications (Aliloupour,
2016). Additionally, some interviews, such as RI22, expressed the great need for “alternative
metrics to be used on what qualifies a content creator as being viable” for support, and further,
RI30 shared “what accountability and credibility look like in the future of content creation.” My
interviews with RI09 and RI11 both had concerns about any way to “quantify” an early career
creative because, as they shared, the importance of their team can be everything that determines
178

if they can be successful or not early on, sharing that the collaboration aspects of independent
filmmaking leave the calculation of one’s possible success more of a team formula than anything
that can be predicted individually.
These models could be used in various aspects of talent discovery across different
industries (Cadigan, 2020) but are less available as tangible practice in the independent film or
entertainment industry (Bolin, 2019), which may be because of the team elements. RI13 spoke
extensively about the “importance of collaborators” and the established people who should
essentially be required to “help position an early career creative” toward potential success goals,
further noting that “experience, network, and access to funding” all come with having an
experienced team, especially when working with a first-time creative. RI13 shared that they are
doing their own work internally to look at what that collaboration “accountability could look
like” from a systems approach. RI05 was confident that nothing matters except “whom you
know and who of those people can finance your vision.” Yet, it seems quite possible to quantify
many of these aspects of a creator’s skillset and experience into metrics that could be tracked and
considered hits-at-base for early career creatives.
Imagining a version between LinkedIn, Glassdoor, and IMDb, one could imagine the
connectivity of one’s creative career teammates being quantified, as is already done on Slated,
with a measure of peer-to-peer rating that can only give you positive feedback if they vouch for
your accountability and credibility. Affirmatively acknowledging that this research is in no way
advocating for any way to possibly build in negative feedback and deeply acknowledges that
there are intentional reasons why one should only be able to elevate creatives and their investors
or simply choose not to, there needn’t be space for hostility, however increasing safer working
spaces based on accountability is recommended.
179

In contrast to existing credibility, RI18 shared their preference for working with “unique
and original first-time creatives,” which was aligned with RI09, who also shared a penchant for
“working with inexperienced filmmakers who come to the table with unique life experiences.”
This deeper dive into an industry’s respective talent workforce may be something to be
considered in the independent film and entertainment industry when it comes to identifying
potential talent who may be viable for early career investment opportunities (Cadigan, 2020).
Most assuredly, the other 28 interviewees also acknowledged that they experienced a tremendous
amount of support to get where they are and had financial resources available to them to take
chances. RI22 said if their “parents hadn’t supported them early on” or if they didn’t “always
know that they wouldn’t end up on the streets if this whole thing failed,” then they maybe
“would not have pushed themselves so hard.” Creators have so much more going for them and
add up to so much more than the sum of their own parts, how then might alternative data
tracking consider quantifying them with alternative metrics so that investors may begin to see
them as viable for initial seed funding opportunities for their original intellectual property
projects. The questions asked across many art organization grant applications are, in many ways,
the foundational knowledge that resonates with the head and the heart of this research. The
grants are essentially trying to get to know the creator at a deeper level to make assessments of
the artist and creator. This is again why I advocate for exploring the curatorial models of the art
organizations and consider what they may look like at a greater scale to meet the needs of the
marketplace.
There was a consistent acknowledgement that having a support team around a creator can
make all of the difference in the world in their creative career trajectory. Based on the interviews
and the literature, it may be worth considering alternative value points of the creator, such as
180

their head, heart, and hustle, to learn more about the viability of early career creatives and track
their creative career trajectory over time to make wiser investment decisions later in their
creative career, based on more informed decision making across their head, heart and hustle as it
has been exhibited through performative reviews both by collaborators and by the individual. An
example of what some of these alternative data metrics could look like, based on the experiences
of the interviews shared, could be the notion of creators having cosigners for initial seed
investment. These could come via their family, friends, peer network, or wider into their human
and social capital as potential data metrics. Understandably, seed investment could become more
readily available in content creation if we were looking at the whole of the creator and not
limiting them to the parts that may only be their content at present. If a filmmaker was
considered a business entrepreneur at their core, and we didn’t only see their original intellectual
property as the fundable quotient, maybe the industry at large would care more for the creator
and support them with a more long-game approach. If we come back to the sports analogy, the
creator should be cared for in regard to their career outputs, not just imagined as a start-up each
time they try to get a new film off the ground.
The Importance of Human and Social Capital
Additionally, the research explores the importance and influential potential for human
and social capital as it is applied throughout the literature review as a means to examine the
value cultivated through the filmmaker’s perspective and personal hustle (Mehta, 2017; Towse,
2006). Based on the interviews, the filmmakers’ respective connections were of the utmost
importance, not only whom the filmmaker knew, but in many cases, it was even more important
who knew or knew of the filmmaker (Duplass & Duplass, 2018; Eberhardt, 2020; Team Slated,
2016). RI12 was adamant that “the team” and, fundamentally, the “social network of a creator”
181

would allow them potential success with their projects. RI14 similarly said, “they are part of a
whole that is ultimately creating.” Also, RI13 shared their network’s “access to financing” as the
“critical pathway towards potential success,” and RI18 ensured that the “wider their network
within the arts and artist support,” the more potential their reach could assure they would find the
appropriate funding necessary for potential success.
While the groundwork was essential from an investor standpoint, the film schools and the
film festivals were essentially less important to the filmmaker, according to the survey (Mehta,
2015). It is my understanding here that these things may be less important from an individual
production standpoint. The potential networking that can take place here is where a great deal of
potential value added to an independent filmmaker’s human and social capital may be underrated
(De Vany, 2003; Ferrari, 2020; RI04; RI05; RI14). And in closing notes shared by RI42, “even
the most extraordinary visionaries in entertainment were only able to achieve their success
because of the support they received along their own creative career trajectories.” So then, how
can the network of a creator work to help build the viability of a creator and increase their access
to financial investment opportunities? In what ways can the entertainment industry lean into the
interoperability of technological advances to see and watch as a creator expands their network
and invites others to verify them for the work that they do? Currently, you can see shared credits
on various databases, and in some cases, these even add value to your respective worth, but it is
not clear if there are actual network relationships as the interviews describe based on these
current databases. So how could we evolve these tools so that one could show more authentic
accountability by their human and societal capital network to invite access to financing?
And then again, Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) ecological systems theory is used as the
foundational framework as well as a deconstructed visual model for understanding relationships
182

from the individual to the societal, with facets that interplay at all levels and the
interconnectedness that influences all as it relates to the independent film industry at large and its
relationship to the entertainment and media landscape (Spigel, 2020). As shared above, the safety
of one’s position and the literal position of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs came into play in
conversations as artists expressed that when they had supporters and champions around them,
they pushed themselves further and elevated their position in the entertainment industry. Much of
the hustle and habituated work that an independent filmmaker is doing based on the research and
the literature expands and connects the creator to the various layers of this model, which
ultimately expands the artist’s connectivity across levels, increasing not only who the filmmaker
knows but who knows them as well, ultimately increasing their value (Cadigan, 2021; Clark,
2021; Mehta, 2017).
Each of the interviewees reflected on the importance of the network and where the
filmmaker is situated with the larger connections, whether it was connections to financing or
connections to their subjects and/or established actors and producers who could help position
them for potential success. Having access to sharing their unique ideas and how they are
positioned to tell them authentically can create opportunity, which requires that they show up in
the spaces. Adding more data metrics that acknowledge this network building could give
valuable insight for investors to create opportunities for creators when they have expanded
themselves to more experienced networks with added accountability and credibility. So, how
could the industry at large start tracking the data of these creators’ early career support
opportunities? Understanding that various technologies exist for a creator to crowd-fund, how
could the information be calculated to ensure that they were able to execute on these projects and
fulfill their obligations for supporters or pay small-scale investors back? These essential hits-at-
183

base could be important early predictors of the credibility and accountability of an emerging
filmmaker and could be valuable information when considering them for initial seed or further
investment.
Hierarchical Structures
Uniquely, these ideas reflect what access and opportunity look like in many ways and
reflect on how this research amplifies an existing hierarchical structure in the entertainment
industry. The understanding that there are specific ways that independent film financing occurs
and that specific individuals and organizations hold the keys to these opportunities effectively
creates inequitable access to opportunity, especially as it relates to financing support and
investment opportunities for early career creatives who have yet to establish themselves at the
top tier levels of accounting and data tracking. The limitations of the systemic structure insist
that one must show up with their financing already in hand in many cases and then get an
opportunity to create. There seems to be a long way to go before more transformative ways to
showcase independent filmmakers, as RI07 and RI18 discussed, that could possibly evolve via
adaptive and innovative technologies, which could truly highlight unique independent
filmmakers beyond the noise of existing public platforms. This idea that creators have to “break
through the noise,” as stated by RI13, was informed by RI18, who explained their work has to be
“visionary on the open platforms” in their respective interviews.
RI15 shared their intentions and personal work toward this equity issue, as well as RI18,
whose projects are hoping to “address some of these issues in the future.” Both interviewees
shared that independent filmmaking has a long way to go before it can catch up with some of the
more equitable talent discovery practices in music, thanks to technological developments with
tools and resources. That outcome, as described in regard to financial returns, in many ways,
184

may lead to fear of change by many industry executives in regard to what could be coming in the
entertainment industry for independent film, as expressed by RI04: “No one really knows what’s
coming next, so most of us are protecting what we still have.”
Building tools for all levels of the industry are of the utmost importance. As much as the
creator needs to be validated, the research indicated that the investor, too, needs additional
validation and established credibility, encouraging the use of technological advances that would
serve both stakeholder groups and allow for additional data tracking on both ends to validate
accountability and credibility across early career projects. More peer-to-peer acknowledgement
of accountability could emphasize trustworthiness, further ensuring that executions have been
completed and everyone wants to work together again. Credibility could exist on proof of
experience and expertise, including reputation, quality of ideas, and peer review accountability,
with stamps of approval built by collaboration and execution of original creative projects as
trackable data. These elements could be built into either existing databases or future databases as
open source tools with add-ons based on need, such as proprietary aspects that allow one to
utilize a database for their own specific needs, either from the creator side or the investor side.
An established C-suite executive shared that even the best organizations are doing minimal
tracking of their alumni, so while “we know the orgs supported the creator earlier on in their
career, the orgs don’t have capacity to show or capitalize on what they really mean to the
development and early career support of who we consider the stars of today.” (R.C., personal
communication 2022)
Funding Required
Independent filmmaking, as shared by RI10, RI14, and RI17, requires financing. Without
access to financing, the chances of being discovered are minimal. RI02 shared with clarity that
185

existing intellectual property “that has already proven viable in the marketplace is the only way
to make a sound decision for investing in a creator.” Anything else requires “too much risk.”
Mullenbach’s (2022) research focused on equitable climate justice, Wane’s (2003) research
focused on equitable education, and Smith’s (2022) research focused on equitable access to
healthcare. Still, all three share the inequity through the barriers to access that could create the
change, with each referencing access to financing as a barrier to equity. Independent film
financing and access to opportunity, as shared herein, is not based on the unique creator’s special
or unique skills. Based on the interviews, executives shared that value is often based on who is
already connected to individuals and organizations in positions of power within a hierarchy
(Elkington, 2020; Heller, 2017).
While these notions seem prevalent in regard to the effort of creation, the most effective
way a creator can break through the noise is through strategic efforts, most of which require
some level of press and advertising, which comes back to having a budget for these tools and
resources. This comes back to the assurance that being a creator whose work gets seen in the
outer layers of the essential marketplace costs money. So, back to the endogeneity question: how
can we support creators to the level that they can at least have a chance to be seen at a qualifying
level of the entertainment industry that they should be able to essential try out for future
financing opportunities for their original intellectual property projects?
Wrap-Up of Findings
Based on these conceptual models and the framework and perspectives in this study, I
propose that the greater potential value of the independent filmmaker must exist both for and
from the perspective of the independent film investor and entertainment industry executive as
well as through the eyes of the independent filmmaker themselves (Duplass & Duplass, 2018;
186

Ferrari, 2020). A more comprehensive understanding of opportunities and the value within them
can effectively reduce risk and, in the long run, increase profit on those investments because
investors could make more intentional, data-backed and informed decisions. However, based on
the findings and the data, it often comes down to access to financing and connections to existing
financing opportunities.
The meritocracy myth (McNamee & Miller, 2018) that somehow the hustle will create
opportunities for financing can be incredibly misleading for independent filmmakers, as it is not
just their head, heart, and hustle that may be valued, but it is their existing access to financing
that is often considered the most important value proposition. However, there seems to be little
to no evidence that this is a value proposition that reduces risk or limits liability. Based on the
interviews, access to financing can assure more readily available access to more opportunities
and lead to increased risk, as was seen in the VC funding research of Mulcahy (2016). If
entrepreneurial qualities and trustworthiness are of the utmost importance to a project's potential
success, along with collaboration and creative flexibility, might the industry benefit from
considering these important skills that could be tracked and measured based on previous creative
collaborations and work outputs?
Recommendations for Practice
It is my understanding, based on the literature, the data, and the results of this research,
that much policy and practice has continued because it has historically worked. However, what is
working is not necessarily optimal, especially with respect to financial returns on initial
investment (Elkington, 2020; Wheelan, 2019). It seems that there are also many people making
respectable efforts toward future-forward solutions in their own right, largely based on their
experience in the industry. As one former network president and Oscar winner stated in response
187

to this initial research development, “The only way this industry works is to look at what made
money last year: copy, paste, and repeat” (T. N., personal communication February 2020).
However, in a following conversation with a major studio, I was told, “Most of our first-time
filmmakers fail when we give them $10 million dollars” (D. B., personal communication, March
2020). Maybe it is time for real reflexive work on current practices and what is possible moving
forward if one were to rethink (Grant, 2021) practices and processes from alternative
frameworks.
In response to this finding, RI18 went into great detail, based on their experience, on why
“independent filmmakers should not be given large budgets but rather be invested in
incrementally” so they can be set up for success over the long run and returns can be “managed
at appropriate scales respective of their development and experience level.” Based on this
research, few creators are set up for financial success in an intentional and scaffolded manner, as
was discussed with RI07, RI13, and RI18. Many aspects of the industry that have been exclusive
and inaccessible remain that way because little attention has been spent on improving policy and
systemic practice (Ferrari, 2020). For example, based on literature, diversity initiatives and
development programs have been built off to the side of the existing entertainment industry
pipeline (Del Barco, 2021b). This leaves a recommendation to focus on what incremental
investment and seed-funding could look like in entertainment: approaching creator support and
original intellectual property investment from scaffolded models as seen in other industries, such
as tech financing, entertainment may be able to more effectively support creators and build
scalable IP with intention while having opportunities to test it in the marketplace with the
creators, reducing risk and limiting liability across the board for all involved.
188

When discussing existing add-ons, it is important to look at how DEI efforts have been
handled recently in the literature and research available. Hunt, Ramon, and Tran (2019) called
the larger studios’ diversity initiatives a cottage industry not connected to nor systemically a part
of any decision making. These initiatives largely exist to vet diverse creators for potential spots
in writers’ rooms to contribute to existing IP (K. E. personal communication, Mar 2020). Current
tools, resources, algorithms, and existing data collection metrics that could determine a
filmmaker’s viability perpetuate a limiting and myopic roster of proven and already established
filmmakers that exist in the macrosystem of Bronfenbrenner’s model.
Based on the literature and data, if an equitable try-out system were created and emerging
talent had a chance at initial seed investment or early-stage resources, investors could seed fund
them and allow them to show what they are capable of in terms of potential financial returns,
testing their concepts in the marketplace earlier on, such as at the mesosystem, minimizing risk,
and determining whether they are ready for further investment. This also invites us to imagine
the creator as a real entrepreneur. The arts organizations are largely philanthropy, and creators
are being supported largely altruistically at this stage and then catapulted into a capitalistic
market where they are expected to produce returns at a very large scale or considered failures.
According to this research, I suggest that the studio is setting them up to fail versus supporting
them financially through a potentially scaffolded model that would fund appropriate to their
experience and previous outputs and slowly elevate them up with each strategically positioned
opportunity. Potential success strategies would require more extensive data tracking of how each
of their earlier career projects were handled and exploring profit and loss directives.
Based on the research, without an all-access try-out system, the entertainment industry
will remain inequitable, and supporters of content and audiences alike will never truly hear from
189

the global diaspora. It seems as though an open door has established itself as being ripe for
creative destruction and ongoing innovation (Aghion et al., 2020; Diamandis, 2020) in the
entertainment industry, and inviting more equitable practices could potentially benefit all,
including equitable access alongside improved investment returns.
Similar to Page (2017), the focus of the research and on the ideological reasons that
diversity, equity, and inclusion should be addressed in regard to equitable access in
entertainment for talent, while compelling, are not singularly motivating. Acknowledging the
discriminatory and racist practices embedded in the politics of entertainment (Crenshaw, 1989),
as well as the systemic structures they operate within (Heller & McElhinny, 2017), is important.
Still, based on this research, exploring possibilities in innovation from the research data and
results that might lead to the economic benefit for a better business and a stronger industry that
could ultimately connect people around the globe is critical. The monetary reality of increasing
profit margins may drive systemic change faster than good intentions (Elkington, 2020; Heller &
McElhinny, 2017; Page, 2017), but either way, both deserve reevaluation based on their current
standings. Making more informed decisions seems like a calculable way to improve investment
odds in independent film, and keeping score of all of the data that is already underway makes
practical sense for more informed decision making.
Recommendation 1: The Head, Better Understanding the Creator’s Growth Mindset
When it comes to understanding the independent filmmaker’s value in relation to their
growth mindset, various investors and industry executives shared that their ability to collaborate
and be wise about their intellectual property as a business venture was of the utmost importance.
The creators who have a strong vision were valued by RI11, RI13 and RI18. As was the creator’s
ability to be flexible and take notes, which represents the strength of a growth mindset (Dweck,
190

2015). The survey results reflected content creators and independent filmmakers who exhibited a
growth mindset early on and retained these findings when they worked over 20 years in the
industry; they essentially understand that with their growth mindset, they can pursue greater
things moving forward for potential future collaborations and successes.
However, the executives only seemed to identify this growth mindset when the
filmmakers executed on their growth mindset, with little space to share its value early on without
actual content or storytelling skills to reflect it in the marketplace. A recommendation that could
be applied to these findings is that when a filmmaker can identify their growth mindset and their
ability to train and develop to build their skills, as they are often doing through the lower caliber
of work, it may be beneficial for the industry at large to track this potential earlier on. If the early
career labs and fellowships could identify those creators who exemplify a growth mindset, they
could make more early career tracking and watch lists for the industry to observe and reflect
talent. This may look like the essay questions on a major arts grant application, as identified on
many application forms. But if they were more accessible from an outsider’s perspective, an
investor might have more meaningful insight into these characteristics of an early career
filmmaker.
The acknowledgement and importance of a filmmaker’s head, mindset, and intellectual
belief in themselves live at the core of their potential success. I propose a competency model for
creators that values this notion and mindset as key indicators of their potential success. Creators
who believe they are getting better with each effort are seen in responses that express their
humility, gratefulness, collaborative flexibility, and comfort in going with the flow from one
project to another. This information could be quantified in a small survey that could be shared on
a database where the creator could agree to share their level of growth mindset to potential
191

investors who are considering working with them. If we acknowledge that mindset is a key
indicator of success, I propose that we shouldn’t have to wait to have already invested in a
creator and then get to know them, but let it be an evaluation that is considered prior to financing
opportunities that are appropriate to their level of development. Might this be the earliest
threshold to give creators a chance to essentially try out for an appropriate level of financing of
their original intellectual property project?
Recommendation 2: The Heart, Better Understanding of a Creator’s Passion and
Persistence
The independent filmmakers who responded to the anonymous survey exhibited a great
deal of sharing regarding their personal strengths and struggles as they relate to their passion and
persistence. They have been working, in many cases, for over 2 decades on projects, consistently
adding more creative endeavors and working toward seeing each of these through. They are
doing this work long before they are seen or acknowledged by the executive and financial side of
the equation. According to the investors and executive producers who could greenlight or finance
their future projects, they are not being acknowledged or considered viable for investment until
they have made it to some of the more elite festivals, development programs, and/or highly
curated spaces of the industry. This leaves creators to expend much of their passion and
persistence before they have ever been seen or validated. The recommendation herein lives in
improving ways to validate artists along the way in their creative careers. If there were more
ways for interested executives and potential investors to consider a creator for potential
investment based on their passion and persistence, might we see more equitable access?
Additionally, many investors shared their keen interest in wanting passionate creators to invest
in. This may live concretely in adding to existing databases with more alternative
192

acknowledgements that validate their passion and persistence. The basic notion often asked, why
should you tell this story, often followed up with, why is it important to tell this story now? If
executives and investors could know more about what makes this creator uniquely appropriate to
tell the story, we might see more of their heart earlier on in their careers.
When it comes to the heart of early career independent filmmakers working on projects
under $10 million U.S. dollars, it may be beneficial to understand what is actually standing in the
way of career opportunities (McNamee & Miller, 2018). The findings reflect that these creatives
are similarly passionate and persistent toward their goals. Many of the interviewees confirmed
that creators need to exhibit this passion and perseverance, as was referenced by RI07, RI09,
RI13, and RI14. However, how they do this is by having developed and produced content that
requires adequate financing. Still, according to the numbers, White males are getting
opportunities at an exponential rate (Follows et al., 2016; Horn, 2020; Hunt, Ramon, & Shim,
2019). Based on these findings, the industry needs to reevaluate how access to opportunities is
distributed.
Based on the research, only creators who can afford to be passionate and persevering are
able to stay with this for the long game, regardless of how much effort they may put into the
work and their projects. Without access to financing, they are not able to show how much fairly
or representatively they care about this work and the industry at large. Similar to the head and
mindset, an improved competency model that allows a creator to express their heart, passion, and
perseverance and share more of their original story could give a creator an opportunity to show
up in the room and essentially try out for an investor’s financial consideration.
This research looked at the head, heart, and hustle of independent filmmakers and content
creators. It found that the creators have a strong vision and are passionate and persistent towards
193

their goals. However, access to opportunities and financing is a major barrier to success. The
research found that these same White males are getting opportunities at an exponential rate and
that those who are able to bankroll and fund their projects are more likely to succeed, amplifying
the existing structures still at play systemically in the entertainment industry at large. The
research concluded that there is a great deal of inequity in the industry and that more research is
needed to understand the barriers to success. Still, filmmakers are persisting across lifelong
careers to get a chance at future opportunities. The effort should not be ignored, especially as it
expands the creator’s accountability in the industry.
So, if a step toward improving industry practice is to intentionally consider passion and
persistence, it might be right to consider a person’s why and how they have gotten where they
are. There may be quantifiable data, such as how long a creator has been making efforts toward
their creative career goals. For example, in a conversation with an executive leader at a major
arts organization, it was shared that “most of our successful applicants [to a very prestigious
filmmaker grant] have applied at least seven times prior to receiving the grant (M.S. personal
communication, February 2020). This essentially means that applicants have applied for this
prestigious arts grant for no less than seven years before receiving the award. This is a tangible
form of persistence at play; however, it is not being tracked at large or at scale for investors to be
able to acknowledge. Again, how could we look at the practices of the arts organizations and
implement the work that they are doing on a larger scale, representative of the scope of content
being developed in the marketplace? Additionally, how could the work they are doing be applied
to a model that invited more regenerative capitalism, so it’s not just philanthropic altruism
supporting their efforts, as is often the case with the arts organizations, but the understanding that
194

this content is part of a very large part of the global economy and the creators of the content
being considered is an important contribution to the global marketplace.
Recommendation 3: The Hustle, Utilizing Past Efforts for Future Financing Opportunities
Additionally, when it comes to the hustle and how independent filmmakers habituate
their career trajectory regarding what they do to move their creative career forward, like the head
and the heart, the results are largely the same for early career creatives and those working over
20 years. Developing and producing content is where most creators spend their energy. And
according to the literature and the interviews, we know this is where most of the funding and
financial support is required (Ferrari, 2020; Follows, 2020; Haine & Edelman, 2020; Hunt,
Ramon, & Tran, 2020). Still, those who can produce the work are less equitable, according to the
literature and the data findings (Horn, 2020; Hunt, Ramon, & Tran, 2020). As referred to in the
interviews with executives, pay-to-play is a real barrier to creating content and getting it out in
front of future decision makers who may provide additional financial support opportunities.
The recommendation for hustle, according to this study, is to build verifiable and
concrete ways to validate creators’ efforts in ways that investors could quantify and utilize for
reducing risk and limiting liability on early-career creative investment. There is a multitudinous
number of programs that creators are doing and endless ways they expend their efforts to be
validated and discovered in the entertainment industry, but there is no existing streamlined
collection of this data that can be referenced. The most prestigious data collection services are
beholden to who is paying for the data, which fundamentally affects what data are collected.
The recommendation is to build a more inclusive database or improve existing ones to
collate the creators’ efforts, including the creators’ education, experience, past efforts,
crowdfunding campaigns, and credibility in having paid past investors back. Creators themselves
195

could be acknowledged and validated for efforts that make them more viable for future
investment. By tracking and collecting such data, such as ReFrame, the industry asks creators to
be intentional with their choices, making the projects in the industry more inclusive and
equitable. The recommendation is to validate the earlier career, smaller efforts, and creators’
work that could track their early career efforts more intentionally and invite more credibility and
accountability in their efforts. This would also invite potential investors, entertainment industry
executives, and decision makers to make more informed decisions based on more meaningful
data. There is a comparable notion that this research asks the entertainment industry to track the
essential hits-at-base. These efforts may not be the big awards to the elite programs, but they are
efforts, and often from a perspective of more equitable access. Sometimes, these efforts are as far
as a creator can go without additional financial support, using the means and creative
opportunities available to them.
Based on the literature and the research, those who can fund their projects and those who
are connected to stronger human and social capital networks push forward in this industry,
allowing them to have a portion of their body of work above the surface, as reflected in the
iceberg. This was reflected in the interviews of the study, where participant interviews of RI11,
RI14, and RI17 all focused on access to financing to ensure creators can keep doing the work and
be relevant for potential opportunities. Similarly, RI09, RI16, and RI18 emphasized the
importance for the creators to be out and about at events and networking opportunities to be
present in front of potential investors with their ideas and original concepts. This type of hustle
requires both time and finance to be able to sustain. Figure 38 presents a visual of the efforts
behind success.
196

Figure 38
Efforts Behind Success

197

Tangibly speaking, when it comes to potential models of hustle, understood as effort,
there is a need to address technological interoperability across platforms. As creators are asked to
make headway across a number of constantly evolving platforms, their effort needs to be
quantified in a tangible database that investors could use for decision making. This is taking
place in various technological and fintech advances that are seeing a gap in finance and
recoupment of film returns. The advocacy here is for it to exist even earlier on in a creator’s
career so they may build their value and have some transparency of their worth to make more
informed decisions on their original intellectual property projects. The work and hustle that
creators are out in the marketplace doing matters, and it is recommended that more effectual data
tracking of the efforts be monitored to invite more informed investment decisions on creators,
inviting them to try out for support earlier on in their careers.
Recommendation 4: The Whole is More Than Its Parts
The reflection based on the results is that there is little deviation in who is an independent
filmmaker and content creator based on their head, heart, and hustle and how little it changes
over time. The creators are essentially doing their best to show up and be present for
opportunities. The largest findings are that access and opportunity as barriers of inequity might
be greater than what was originally thought. What is better understood now is that a lot more
future research should be done to gather conclusive evidence based on the creators’
characteristics, and more data needs to be collected for investors to make more informed
decisions when it comes to financial opportunities for creators and their original intellectual
property.
The creators believe in themselves in largely the same manner, pursue the craft with
similar passion and perseverance, and habituate the work in the short and long term in largely the
198

same way, based on existing tools and resources within their respective professional orbit.
Therefore, it is presumed that the greatest inequity in the entertainment industry pertains to
opportunities and access to financing as originally thought, but in greater disproportion, even if it
was what those creators were sharing from the beginning in the early research. The literature and
data seemed to imply that everyone has similar access if they pursue the work. However, based
on the interview results, creators who are doing the work are also expected in many ways to
show up and know how to either connect to the financing or walk in the room with the potential
financing connected to their concept via their human and social capital networks.
If there is such great inequity for those artists, content creators, and independent
filmmakers from what we can see above the surface in relation to perceived success, the
magnitude of inequity below the surface may be greater. As understood, based on the study,
more creators cannot break the surface due to a lack of access to financing, as reflected in early
queries with creators around the world to try to identify the barriers. The research did find some
reflections that could delineate who was getting access, but it seems the inequality remains
across the board in the opportunities themselves, as, across the globe, filmmakers are pursuing
the industry with similar capacity in their heads, hearts, and hustle, but deserve to be tracked
more effectively to represent their uniqueness so that they may be viable for trying-out for
financial opportunities appropriate to their level of development and experience.
This research found that independent filmmakers have a growth mindset that gives them
the resilience to know that their skills and craft will continue to improve through their belief in
themselves and consistent learning through experience and effort. Additionally, the creators
surveyed exhibited a high level of passion and perseverance as they pushed their efforts forward
while trying to seek continued validation and opportunities for potential financial investment.
199

The creators surveyed shared their extreme hustle exhibited by the sheer number of physical and
exhibited efforts they consistently pursue. Creators are doing everything they can to the best of
their abilities based on their financial capacity. Still, based on the literature and research, creators
often lack access to financial opportunities for their own original intellectual property projects.
The recommendation is for the industry to create more equitable access to financing
opportunities. By comparing the independent filmmaker finding results with the interviews, the
gap between the creative and the investor may be more complicated than originally proposed.
The efforts and abilities of creators who lack access to financing may never be seen and or
acknowledged as viable for potential investment if they are not able to get far enough out into
where executives and investors begin their talent discovery search. As shared by the literature
and the interviewees, they begin their search at the premiere festivals, elite development
programs, and highly curated events. In many cases, the investors shared that they expect a
creator to have managed a similar-sized budget before they are considered for an opportunity.
The recommendation herein is to track what are essentially the hits-at-base for creators
earlier on in their creative careers. The recommendation is to build more equitable data points to
be used as qualifying metrics for investor consideration. These may include their education,
experience, internships, crowd funding campaigns, and ability to pay their investors back, even
at the smallest scale. Additional data that could be quantified is their peer-to-peer accountability
with colleagues. Credibility can exist in the acknowledgement that past colleagues are creative
collaborators who may want to work with a creator again and validate them as able to execute on
their visions and complete their projects. A creator’s ability to create content or create a story in
alternative forms of media are potentially viable ways that an investor could quantify the
viability of a creator.
200

These more equitable, smaller-scale steps may invite more equitable access for
consideration for creators when it comes to their value in relation to potential investment. The
recommendation is that more data could reduce risk for investors and limit their liability on
creators who have not necessarily produced a film at a comparable scale or budget, but they may
be eligible for smaller-scale seed investment that could open the doors to future financial
opportunities for their own original intellectual property projects. Everything a filmmaker is
doing that increases their entrepreneurial skills, business savvy, ability to tell a story, manage a
budget, and build their creative network is hustle that can be tangibly tracked through the
advances in interoperability across tools, resources, platforms and databases.
With the initial results and findings, the research only began to touch on the value of the
artists, content creators, and independent filmmakers advocated for in this research. More
research would need to be done to reflect the head, heart, and hustle over time. What the research
does imply in regard to the findings is that creators need more opportunity and, effectually, more
access to financing opportunities. If early career creatives are showing up with the same potential
in regards to their heart, heart, and hustle, and still we see such inequity in regards to the
literature and data available in regards to who is getting financial opportunities, more additional
research with more detailed questions about how and where those creators who are able to push
through the surface with their respective iceberg and how they are able to do so is needed to
understand the trajectory to financing.
From the foundational level, the research identified that filmmakers have an established
growth mindset in how they think of themselves and develop their skills, craft, and talent.
Additionally, the filmmakers surveyed and researched herein also have strength of heart
regarding their own passion and perseverance. While they are distracted, which reflects a gig and
201

creator economy, they are not dissuaded from pulling through and completing the work and the
tasks before them in the creative career trajectories. In fact, based on the findings, they are
valuing the working realities of continually developing and producing more and more content
and getting it out into the world in conjunction with the ever-changing industry and technological
changes, challenges, advances, and setbacks. That said, while they do the work with great effort,
we are still losing, in effect, an incredible amount of representation across the global diasporas
despite their efforts, according to the literature that supports these efforts (Follows, 2016; Holt,
2019; Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019), and we are essentially losing so many cultivated storytellers
and small business leaders along with their institutional knowledge because they don’t have
access to future financing opportunities.
The investors are effectively sharing that achieving a seeming level of success requires
simply creating the projects and getting one’s creative vision and work out into the world, a
notion that was felt as authentic sentiment by several of the interviewees, including RI08, RI11,
RI15, and RI18. Similarly, they share that it costs money to create work that is of the quality and,
in some cases, quantity that they are interested in seeing regarding the evaluation of their creative
career and financial opportunity potential. However, this cost-prohibitive reality limits creators
and creates a great economic divide, as some have access to human and social capital in terms of
connections and personal wealth. In contrast, the have-nots are not going to be able to develop or
produce content that reflects their potential original production concepts or produce them into the
marketplace to share their viability. It takes time, money, and capacity that is not equitable across
one’s head, heart, and hustle to keep creating. However, the expectation alongside the
meritorious myth creates a misleading guide for most creators.
202

The hope with these findings is that the independent film and entertainment industry at
large can continue to address ways to increase equitable access to potential financial
opportunities for artists, content creators, and independent filmmakers. The artists this research
highlights have the human capacity to succeed. They simply need to be seen as more than the
sum of their existing parts and given opportunities regarding access to potential financing
support to bring their original intellectual property to life. The sincerest recommendation is
scaffolded investment opportunities based on extensive and holistic data tracking of creators
inviting an equitable access try-out process.
Limitations and Delimitations
This research initially intended to explore the barriers to financial support for
independent filmmakers and content creators. The recommendations lean towards further
research and looking into the potential of using adaptive technology and AI advances to measure
a content creator’s potential value, as well as the various tools and resources available for
filmmakers and investors. The intention is to advocate for more equitable access to funding for
content creators and independent filmmakers and further the potential for data collection based
on new and evolving metrics to improve financial returns for investors. These efforts could exist
in the form of competency models that aggregate the value of a creator earlier on in their career,
which then gives them access to try out for initial seed funding opportunities and appropriate
levels of financing based on their stage of development with the ability to scaffold that
investment based on marketplace testing and profit and loss accounting. The hope is to continue
to deconstruct the barrier that exists between the creators and their potential financing
opportunities, as well as the understanding that a creator's creative career hustle and struggle
203

begins much earlier than at the current investor identification level, represented as
Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem.
Reflection and Unity
The primary focus lies in learning and advocating for independent filmmakers, artists,
storytellers, and content creators, utilizing available academic models to deepen the
understanding of this community and its support systems. The journey of studying independent
filmmakers has proven both beautiful and challenging, as the research was blessed, challenged,
and inspired by the individuals involved, expanding perspective on the world. The filmmakers
have the potential to evoke similar transformative experiences in others and standing united with
them, the research aims to contribute value, transparency, and legitimacy to their creative work.
The researcher’s lifelong involvement with art organizations and film executives, who hold
decision-making power in creating opportunities for these creatives, further strengthens the
connection to the research subjects and enhances the learning in multiple directions.
Despite the tendency to compartmentalize theories, subjects, and knowledge, the research
aspires to break free from such constraints and contribute to a more inclusive and holistic
understanding. Embracing the unity of their own being within the research process, approaching
their inquiry with humility and gratitude for the interconnectedness that exists. The research has
been intentionally developed to comprehend the experiences of independent filmmakers and
their support systems, fueled by a passion for deconstructing the industry through language and
theory. With unwavering commitment, the research seeks to continue this work, adding value,
transparency, and legitimacy to the endeavors of artists while acknowledging and appreciating
the interconnected nature of the research and the experiences shared by the subjects.
What, How
204

The intention is to translate the readings and understanding of this research into
recommendations to address more equitable support of independent filmmakers and content
creators so all may benefit. It is often the easiest to ask questions about the darkness, the obvious
problems, and the surface layer of what is not working, and this initial research did this, allowing
a better way to see barriers to financial support opportunities for creators. Defined by experience
working in artist support as well as being an artist and independent filmmaker, the issue became
further embedded by trying to unpack the problem and being surrounded by multiple piles of
alternative problems, dark issues, and shadows that made the research dirtier, more complicated,
and ultimately took much longer than expected. The recommendation is to move forward and
suggest facing the light, for the abundance and for the possibility. A recommendation is a more
transdisciplinary approach that may be the outline of everything that is possible, which is where
it may be possible to articulate and shine a light upon future possibilities.
Future Forward and the Importance of Acknowledging the Technology
The head, heart, and hustle as proposed potential value metrics for trackable data are
based on the literature and corroborated by the interviews with executives when discussing the
advances in adaptive technologies to increase intentional and available data for talent discovery
(Cadigan, 2021; Diamandis, 2017). Adaptive technologies herein may be any of the constantly
evolving tools and resources the industry is already using to gauge viability, as discussed, such
as Slated, Cinelytic, Largo, and other industry database-type tools that are intended to reduce risk
in investment of independent film. Should these technologies open their metrics to a more
equitable understanding of value propositions as related to the research herein on head, heart, and
hustle, more filmmakers may be able to qualify for potential investment with these innovative
205

tools. The notion of talent discovery in relation to the entertainment industry’s larger talent
workforce could then be accessible to more creators earlier on in their creative career trajectory.
There are ever-increasing opportunities to use adaptive technology and AI advances for
measuring a content creator’s potential value. There are scores and rating systems and literal
projections as far as potential outcomes related to both independent filmmakers and their
potential original intellectual property projects. Some of these tools and resources use analytic
systems such as Variety’s business intelligence tools and analytics. In a personal conversation
with J. N. (2020), “the existing data [being collected by these major databases] for predictive
outcomes is all being collected based on the top five studios.” There have always additionally
been a number of production companies that interface between production and the investment
strategy with a focus on risk mitigation, or newer tools, products and products amongst an ever-
growing offering of new AI learning advances. Tools that are utilizing Web3 are also growing in
the marketplace to increase opportunities for both creators as well as investors and enthusiasts of
supporting the artists for both purpose and profit. The recommendation is to rethink the specific
data that is making the predictions and consider the value potential of the creator’s head, heart,
and hustle.
The increase in tools and resources continues to open the doors for more equitable access
for content creators. Much the same, the music industry was able to expand exponentially with
technological advances and the unique ability for autonomy to reach the global marketplace. The
independent film industry is also expanding exponentially (Diamandis, 2012). Platforms such as
YouTube are the most widely used sharing methods around the world. Still, independent
filmmakers can get lost in the noise. Uniquely, the cost and collaboration needed for an
independent film still make it less equitable than the music industry, as highlighted by the
206

research interviews. Despite continual advances in technological tools for filmmaking, the multi-
media requirements are still cost-prohibitive for much of the world. However, the independent
filmmaking door is widening, allowing for more platforms and spaces to share content creators’
and independent filmmakers’ work. However, equitable access to funding is still an area in need
of some of these technological advances if equity is to be matched for early-career funding
opportunities. More ways to create and share invite more opportunities for data collection based
on new and evolving metrics.
This increase in available data may improve financial returns for investors. With the rise
in tools and resources, there is a growing interest in what makes the data and its respective
metrics equitable. Understanding that established creators are being valued on the work they
have gotten to the marketplace, what metrics and/or measures might be used to address a more
equitable value system? Leaning into this understanding of equity and seeing access from a space
where all potential filmmakers have equitable access to be considered for potential support and
financial investment.
The research discussed the potential value metrics of head, heart, and hustle for trackable
data, which is based on potential advances in adaptive technologies. The hope is to highlight the
opportunities for using adaptive technology and AI advances to measure a content creator’s
potential value. Further research exploring the various tools and resources available for
filmmakers and investors, such as the existing tools that are available as well as the many
becoming available, is recommended. Finally, a recommendation to encourage further
exploration of the very need for more equitable access to funding for content creators and
independent filmmakers and the potential for data collection based on new and evolving metrics
to improve financial returns for investors.
207

Recommendations for Future Research
The following recommendation is inspired by the transdisciplinary research and writings
of Montuori (2011). Emphasizing the importance of being open-minded and reflective when
conducting research. The recommendation is to encourage future researchers to push past the
information that is available and to ask new questions that can provide new insights. Suggesting
that by acknowledging existing biases and subjectivity, it could be possible to build future tools
to learn and grow. Another recommendation is to apply this knowledge to life and to champion
the artists with whom we all live and work, whomever they may be.
Ask More Questions, See More Connections
It is easy to begin with the oversimplification of this research and its attempts to address
equity in entertainment, a behemoth of a problem. The initial exploration was access for creators
by looking at who was represented at the labs and fellowships at nontraditional education
programs for independent filmmakers shared through case studies inequities in a basic equation.
It was too basic, to say the least. Humbly, that first research kept at it simply because there was a
reliance on the very organizations being studied for sustaining and belief that they would provide
advancement by way of my deeper understanding of their own intention and possibility within
their spaces. According to D’Agostino, as quoted by Martin (2019), the research was boxed into
the mechanisms that distribute forms of knowledge. At the end of the day, the research was just
re-organizing and sharing similar data.
That initial research expanded to business and systems until there was an initial problem
of practice that related to the existing passion for artist support. The research in this academic
query looked at the finance models based on organizational change data and, again, may have
ultimately over-simplified the issues so that it could present data as encouraged within a system
208

and structure that exists for its own status quo and completion rates. Through each of these
programs and steps in the research, there has been a confined approach to topic areas, limited
systems thinking, and an encouraging approach to be embedded in existing research of a self-
defining agenda and confined within boundaries so they can ultimately propel existing narratives
for the purpose of advancing the research. Much like Nicolescu (2002) shared about disciplinary
boundaries, the borders in a garden, the flowers and bushes are going to grow over and around
everything that was intended to constrain because nature finds a way. Similarly, Martin and
Mikkelson (2019) wrote that this integration adds to the possibilities of what the research can be
by blending paradigms and understanding. This is the garden recommended to present and share
as nature shares it back.
By looking at the light, the inordinate possibilities of what makes a creator in
independent film shine, their success, and their ability to rise above in a system, it is easy to see
that the system is fraught with challenges. By exploring how creators achieve their respective
creative career success and how others may learn from it, it may be possible to recommend at
this nascent stage that this has to do with organizational psychology research, such as the
categories referred to as head, heart, and hustle as well as entrepreneurship research and
creativity research. The hope is to be driven by the question to better understand what success
looks like for independent filmmakers without too many preconceived notions of what that needs
to look like and avoiding restricting it to the above ideas, but rather allowing it to flow past,
through and beyond what one might know. The recommendation is to capture the narrative along
the way and grow a reflexive garden of my own to share in the future.

209

Pushing Out Toward More Creative Inquiry
In an attempt to remove ego, the recommendation for future inquiry is to learn and to not
come in knowing, restricted, or confined by existing ways of knowing that are available from
one’s positionality. The desire to learn from and for the independent filmmakers researched.
Independent filmmakers are the storytellers, the modern bards weaving image, sound, story, and
craft in a medium that often translates language, much like music in long-form. The executives
and investors do provide opportunity and build systems for the creator to navigate. However, the
filmmaker is the architect of fiction (and nonfiction) with the potential to connect communities
around the world. The research passion is fueled to support these creators in a way that increases
access to them, finding the appropriate support to move forward with their respective visions,
creations, and manifestations of knowledge in the film medium. As a lifelong servant to the field
best described as artist-support, I advocate for many missions of prestigious nonprofit
organizations to entertainment studios that support artists. The failures are where the research has
focused. A future research goal and recommendation is to research more about the outliers who
were able to elevate beyond the risk, the challenges, and the barriers and bring life to their
creations in spite of existing systems.
The ongoing research needs to learn more from these creators and their existing support
systems that they are entangled with to better understand what it takes for an independent
filmmaker to achieve their own respective version of creative career success. Recommendations
to build a better system industry-wide still exist to work for those creatives who have yet been
able to manifest their potential. The writing of Le Guin in Barron et al. (1997) is amplified as the
research exists alongside four small children, allowing the inquiry to work, as Le Guin described
“as a cow grazes.” The recommendation is to reflect further on the research and to understand
210

how creators attribute their success, what success looks like to them, and what makes their
ability to create an outlier in an industry where most struggle and find challenges to their creative
progress.
Acknowledging Complex Systems
The initial understanding in this research was that the problems have been siloed, and the
siloing is much of the problem. An example from the research experience is that in conducting
some interviews with an economist at Yale, they suggested that the research was trying to
understand valuation of independent filmmakers akin to the financial engineering research of
Beaumont (2004) and Chen (2022), reorganizing the system in independent film. When this idea
was brought up to one of the persons in a position to approve the research, they said that the idea
of financial engineering was not warranted and did not make any sense because financial
engineering was only for economic analysts and could not be applied to independent film or
independent film financing. Sharing this experience is intended to offer an example of missed
opportunities in compartmentalized thinking, encouraging more why research and less limiting
existing preconceived notions.
Compartmentalizing ideas has been much of what this research has been up against.
Another memorable interview quote from the research came from an entertainment industry
executive, who stated that the research “is futile because all [the researcher] will find is that
[major corporation and studio name here] already does everything they could do for equity.”
This authority over the acquisition of knowledge and inquiry in one’s respective space suggests
that new ideas are not welcome here and there is no need for them. Lovitts (2008) spoke to
independent research and the researcher in a way that resembled much of the experience to
improve research and work toward including the microenvironment of relationships all around
211

us. This journey intends to expand these relationships and begins to surround itself with others
who are averse to the restrictions previously experienced. From this perspective, there is no need
for these limitations others find comfort in because those suggesting these limitations already
benefit from the existing system that they are positioned in, so they imagine others need not
consider changing it because they are already good. An additional response from the academic
space questioned the research intention by suggesting that “the entertainment industry already
makes money. What could this research ever do to improve an entire system?” The hope is that
constant inquiry, ever-evolving iteration, and ongoing innovation will be more fruitful and that
this research is just the beginning.
The research and all it is surrounded by is more complicated than any possible siloing of
information, more than any simplified sum of parts. The filmmakers researched are far more than
the sum of their parts, and this research suggests that they are more than the sum of the stories
and creations that they desire to create and share with the world. The intent moving forward for
future research is to collect narratives, experiences, and feedback from the creators and pull in
various systems thinking that applies to their understanding of their own success. Some may look
much like a strategic plan as laid out in a business school playbook. However, others may be
more spiritual or collective in nature. It is possible that some creators may be more
individualistic in their approach, and others may be more community-based. The future
recommendation and goals are to listen with intention and present their stories with clarity of
purpose and authenticity to learn more comprehensively.
Go Big, Expand Towards a Metaverse
Throughout the research, there was often the question of ‘to whom and for whom’ while
collecting data, reading, and researching for this inquiry. There is the ability to find anything you
212

are looking for. With increasing awareness, one can find anything to be validated if one holds up
the question to the light at the right angle. There are articles that speak to the inequities in the
entertainment industry as easily as there are articles laying out all of the equitable improvements
being made by the organizations and the studios. There is plenty of research on bias and
instability, as there are articles on the changes being made and the advances that make
production more feasible or attainable for creators. Depending on how the question is framed,
it’s possible to find the answer one is looking for depending on how the question is asked. The
recommendation is not to entrap the questions or the query to lead the outcome. The research
needs to be expansive and flexible to the responses to reflect the creator’s uniqueness and give
them space and freedom to fully express their experience. Reflective analysis without
assumptions based on what is already known. There is an aspect of this that emboldens the
researcher to listen with intention. The researcher should allow the incoming data to wash over
them as if they know nothing so as not to be ready to share or recount what they think they may
have been told before they are finished. Ensuring that the research is open to anything that could
be possible and that any previous understandings may be incomplete or even false. Living with
my research in the space between listening and asking the next question without steering the
questions. Breathing into what one may learn beyond what they think they may know. Being
respectful and comprehensive in embracing all ways of knowing in regard to how they approach
the research, including by way of Kripal’s (2014) definition of empowered imagination.
Humility That This Is Just an Attempt at Learning and Growing
The recommendation for future research here lies in the hope to learn more, grow
beyond, and explore further with the research. Humility and gratitude carry the weight beyond
bias and subjectivity and lest it not define the results. Gordon (2011) encouraged researchers to
213

push past what information is available, to learn from it, and to ask new questions that could
provide new insights into an inquiry. With each oversimplification, as understood and identified,
the suggestion is to lift them off what presents itself, no longer as weights of oppression, but
becoming hot-air balloons that could create space and elevate the learning so that the knowledge
builds beyond what could be learned to know and grow. Like any system built for better
understanding, humbly, may these perspectives within their paradigms encourage learning from
others from each of their perspectives and paradigms. Defining one’s positionality and constantly
coming back to it encourages furthering knowledge by understanding where the research is
coming from, as part of the whole, one connection and one step at a time.
Founded with informative education, sets the stage for more expansive work of being a
part of transformative research and furthering education and understanding both in the research
and for the researcher so that it can begin to be applied and be reflected in more comprehensive
research outputs. I am humbled that this is just the beginning, while practically speaking,
completing this actual dissertation in a respectable amount of time. The work is to learn and
grow without limits, hoping to carry what begins here into how to approach research, life, and
learning, including how to champion creatives toward their creative career potential. The
recommendation is to embrace humility in all learning and growing.
More Empathy Please
“I believe empathy is the most essential quality of civilization” (Ebert, 2010, para. 5).
The term “coddiwomple” encourages travel purposefully toward an as-yet-unknown destination
and is an encouraging recommendation for future research, knowing that one may work to
understand the success of independent filmmakers toward their creative career goals. Humbly
accepting that that could be ego-thinking, thus being open to what comes next. Being confident
214

that this is the journey and trusting the process. Yes, maybe that is the inquiry as much as it is the
destination putting into the theoretical GPS, but the truth is, everything seen and learned along
the way will be what is available from all of this effort. This is an absolute best effort to conform
these ideas into a respectable dissertation that can be defended in all senses of that term in the
academic realm.
The most authentic and humblest goal is to learn along the way how to learn and how to
listen. The hope is to add value to independent filmmakers in tangible forms that may empower
and encourage others’ creative career goals and get them the financial support they need to create
and share their projects with the world while incentivizing investors because they could be
making more informed decisions for increased ROI. The recommendation for future research
toward the understanding of the success of independent filmmakers in achieving their creative
career goals allows for more learning and listening along the way. The end goal is to add value to
independent filmmakers and empower them with the tools and resources to reach their goals so
they may help build creative bridges of empathy between individuals, communities, nations, and
the world.
Conclusion
The researcher is committed to the position that this exploration was conducted through a
lens that is founded on equity and transparency. The understanding is that research could benefit
all of the respectable players who live and work around the independent film landscape, from
creators, artists, and filmmakers to their respective agents and managers and ultimately to the
independent film investors and entertainment industry executives who have the decision making
power to open the doors and create support and offer financial opportunities for creators to share
their voice in the medium of independent film. The hope is that this information and the data
215

collected can be of benefit to the art organizations and the companies doing the work to support
creators in unique and compelling ways that are opening doors towards equity in entertainment
and increasing the positions and the platforms for creators to be heard for their authentic and
original intellectual property creative goals. Ultimately, the hope is to instill more comprehensive
ways of understanding independent filmmakers so that the entire independent film industry may
make systemic, strategic, equitable, inclusive, and more informed investment decisions.
Exploring systemic barriers to initial investment opportunities for emerging independent
filmmakers invites inspiration to address foundational change to make long-lasting
improvements. With intention and a fundamental approach to learning, this research study hoped
to offer insights that may encourage a culture of change within and around the entertainment
industry toward more equitable practices of talent discovery of independent filmmakers and
content creators via their access and opportunities for financial support investment in their
original intellectual property projects.
The research was not intended to focus on any ideological reasons that equity or equitable
access should be addressed. Rather, the aim of this specific research and the hope through the
data collection and reflection was to provide practical and pragmatic insights to propel
innovation with intention and offer potential strategic proposals for addressing purpose and profit
in the entertainment industry (Apple, 2020; Kiuyi, 2021; Mayes & Roche, 2021; Vogel, 2015
Weprin, 2021; World Economic Forum, 2021). The research suggests that the industry has an
underrepresented market of early career data that could open doors to representation and offer
insights to reflect and recognize its existing systemic biases, allowing for efforts to reduce
exclusion and bias practices at key decision-making points across the board from internal
structures, investment strategies, and on to the development, production, and distribution of
216

content (Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019; Taylor, 2010; Vogel, 2015). The industry at large has
incredible opportunities to greatly improve its ROI of independent films if it were to take
advantage of technological advances in data collection and analysis and track the performance of
its creator workforce via multiple approaches to interoperability when it comes to existing data
collection (Cardigan, 2020; Porterfield, 2021; Sherbin & Rashid, 2017).
This reflection concludes that increased awareness of the potential harm that diversity
initiatives can cause in further separating and dividing groups contrary to any popular ideas that
they are proclaiming, which include giving a hand up to those who are in greater need (Hunt,
Ramon, & Shim, 2019; Moore, 2019; Porterfield, 2021). Additionally, an effective and
accessible talent entry point could be built, connecting many existing and exemplary
development programs, as well as regional and local festivals, to affluent investment funds. With
all of the development programs and various trajectories (the film schools, the festivals, the
markets), as well as the work being done by those hustling to make it in the industry, the industry
has an ever-expanding opportunity to acknowledge and value these skilled and talented creators
with micro-seed investment opportunities (Davis, 2018; Kituyi, 2021; McNamee & Miller, 2019;
Mehta, 2017; Miege, 2019).
Based on the research findings through the surveyed filmmakers, these emerging creators
are spending as much as and, in some cases, more than decades to develop their craft, and they
are positioning themselves for a more transparent and equitable pipeline to potential investment
for their future original IP. According to the data, many of the existing resources, tools,
technological advances, and insights, including databases and algorithms that determine
investment viability (Holt & Perrin, 2019; Hunt, Ramon, & Shim, 2019; Team Slated, 2016),
could be calibrated with additional metrics and data points that address evolved values, to
217

recognize a new talent pipeline with the ability to look forward to potential viability in the global
market for both improved profits and more equitable representation in both the US and
international markets (Elkington, 2020; Follows, 2018; Hillman & Werner, 2017; Horn, 2021).
Acknowledging that there is systemic bias and racism at play is fundamental for there to
be growth (Deuze & Prenger, 2019; Eberhardt, 2020; Page, 2017). Based on much of the
research, without acknowledging the problems or barriers within the system, there will continue
to be ways to deny, cover up, and placate with band-aid initiatives the redirection of attention
elsewhere through various programs and platforms that feel like a solution without ever
addressing the root of the problems (Del Barco, 2021b; Donner, 2015). This could look like
reevaluating hiring practices, new staff, board members, and advisors and bringing siloed
initiatives into the mix so that the filmmakers are not outside the system but rather integral to the
systems career tracks and decision making itself (Chan-Olmstead & Wang, 2019; Cadigan,
2020).
The literature and data share that there are multiple reliable points of information that are
not currently being tracked that could help determine the potential marketplace profitability as
well as the reliability of emerging talent (DeVany, 2003; Follows, 2022). For example, based on
alternative data, new tools and resources, and variable algorithms could go beyond what has
already been done and be a better predictor of the future and financial growth potential (Deloitte,
2021; Diamandis, 2015). According to one prominent independent director and producer, “the
things we can’t always see a need to be tracked, including a creator’s dedication to doing press
releases and getting out and doing question and answer sessions with audiences, connecting their
person to their art” (J.D.(b), personal communication, March 2020). This sentiment was shared
by multiple interviews (RI04, RI11, RI22).
218

These proposed tracking measures could offer the ability to focus on what is most
important and begin to truly identify talent beyond limiting it to previous box office success.
More intentional scaffolded investments could prove the returns in the long run if the system
works from a financial engineering perspective because the data would need to be tracked for
films throughout the process of creation from initial ideation and greenlighting through a staged
development process to distribution (Hennig-Thurau & Houston, 2019). The larger the pool of
emerging talent invested in based on such potential valuation metrics, data collections, and
possible algorithms, the more data available that could give the widest set of results in regard to
the success rate of these improved systems, practices, and processes. Based on the data and the
research, a newly developed system has the potential to revolutionize representation and
inclusion across the entertainment industry.
This research addressed systemic barriers to investment for early career independent
filmmakers in relation to equitable talent discovery methods and practice. Additionally, the hope
was to better understand those creators vying for support by examining their head, heart, and
hustle in relation to the understandings and definitions of success trajectories within the
frameworks and existing research of growth mindset and grit. Finally, the study examined how
creators pursue creative careers and how their respective hustle positions them for potential
investment opportunities, which was designed in the research based on Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological model. The ideas are founded on information that could be used to develop and
improve global access for early career creatives, with the potential for additionally improving
returns on financial independent film investment as well as the ability to set processes for
limiting liability on previously undiscovered talent who are often considered higher risk.
219

Some of the results of this research included the foundational impact and importance of
representation and how representation matters across the entertainment industry at large
(Atcheson, 2018; Bhargava, 2021; Bourdages, 2021; DelBarco, 2018; Donner, 2015; Follows,
2016). The creators themselves matter, as does who they are as individuals and the work that
they do. Their efforts and hustle are essential, often taking place in the micro and mesosystem of
the ecological model. The research findings offer insights that might conclude with an emphasis
that the data that is being tracked and what matters to potential investors needs to include the
hustle that is the effectual work that filmmakers and content creators are pursuing. Focusing on
the interconnectedness of the creator’s person and their work will eventually lead to their larger
projects that will be fed into the larger ecosystem of entertainment (Follows, 2022; Hennig-
Thurau & Houston, 2019; Spigel, 2020).
Essentially, independent film investors and industry executives could reduce some of the
risk, and the entire industry could be seen as more holistic, interconnected, and profitable
(Faustino & Noam, 2019; Gupta, 2020). Inviting a more holistic understanding of the economic
benefit for better business practices, wiser investment strategies, more informed decision
making, and a stronger industry may lead to more reliable information for future investment
decision making. A new systemic practice actualized for independent filmmaker talent discovery
could prove a more profitable financial success (Lelis, 2021; Page, 2017). It will only be possible
when and where there can be no legacy bias or ideological arguments that could disagree that
embracing DEI in such a way and becoming a more inclusive industry is better for business
(McNamee & Miller, 2019; Page, 2017).
Basing much of the initial research proposals change theory on Schumpeter’s (1942)
work on innovation approaches the framing for understanding inclusion (Galvez & Munoz,
220

2020; Lewis, 2012), allowing this research to propose that the tools and resources to provide the
most efficient, useful, and transparent steps to innovate industry professionals and investors to
reduce risk in emerging content creators and increase profit are through equitable access. The
most foundational aspect of equity in entertainment lives in the removal of gatekeepers and
minimization of barriers for any content creator or independent filmmaker to have access to
essentially try out for potential support and initial financial investment opportunities (Nieborg et
al., 2019; Patel et al., 2016) at much earlier stages for smaller seed investment. Equity may be
addressed by developing an industry-wide database that tracks all emerging talent and begins
instituting accountability via a potential performative peer review process, inviting a global and
holistic network. These processes might require internal innovation on recurring cycles to
continue to evolve and innovate improvements. Proprietary watch-lists might allow industry
professionals and investors to create specific tracking systems based on their data-based needs.
This system could encourage scaffolded investment opportunities that connect content creators
and their original intellectual property with seed funding based on developmental status, proof of
concept staging, scaffolded investment strategies, creators’ credibility, and the ability to expand
valuations of an independent filmmaker’s foundational hustle.
There is no doubt that success must be felt by all and for all, imagining an entertainment
industry where anyone and everyone has an opportunity to try out. The true success of this
research may be in the formation of a future-forward, holistic industry-wide systemic practice for
investors, agencies, studios, and distributors to profit from the authentic, sustainable, and
regenerative support of global independent filmmakers. By exploring international football talent
scouting practices, global access for creators to essentially try out at earlier stages of their career
trajectory. The resources needed are based on technology and buy-in, which evolve via
221

behavioral and educational change. The research suggests that much of what is needed already
exists in terms of development programs, established support programs to highlight creators, and
various databases to determine outcomes, thereby leaving effectiveness alive in utilizing
advances in technology with micro-innovation, which could improve interoperability between
platforms and existing systems.
Then, based on scaffolded seed investment practices from the tech industry, one could
develop financial support systems that acknowledge the lowest risk creators and offer
opportunities for incremental seed investment for the appropriate stage of their original IP
development. Planning investment strategies based on holistic data and analyzing market testing
on creator accountability and IP viability will aid in designing projects based on short-term and
long-term outcome needs. It would be possible to implement investment strategies matching
creators with pre-determined investment goals, testing, integrating, and producing intentional
products. The maintenance lives in the data collection and consistent reevaluation of the
program’s effectiveness for all.
This research intended to explore systemic barriers to initial investment opportunities for
emerging independent filmmakers and how to create equitable talent discovery methods and
practices. The research found that there is systemic bias and racism at play within existing
systemic structures and that without acknowledging the problems or barriers within the system,
there will continue to be ways to deny, cover up, and placate with band-aid initiatives. The
research suggests that the industry has an underrepresented market of early career data that could
potentially open doors to representation and offer insights to reflect and recognize its existing
systemic biases. It proposes that the data that is being tracked and the systems at play that are
collecting and defining what matters to potential investors could include the essential hits-at-
222

base, the hustle that is the effectual work that filmmakers and content creators are doing. There
can be data without intention or information, but there cannot be intentional information without
data. By identifying emerging filmmakers earlier on and seed-funding their work through a
scaffolded process, one could then valuate and track their hustle and accomplishments. The
research proposes the entertainment industry must start tracking the data that make up the
measure of the iceberg below the surface and step away from relying solely on the measure of
the top. Based on this research, improved practice for emerging talent discovery and
development could give creators more equitable opportunities to try out and eventually and
ultimately improve returns on film investment. The challenge remains; just because something
has existed for some time does not prove that it is somehow optimal.

223

References
Aghion, P., Antonin, C., & Bunel, S. (2020). The power of creative destruction: Economic
upheaval and the wealth of nations. Harvard University Press.
Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica,
60(2), 323–351. https://doi.org/10.2107/2951599
Ahmed, S. (2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 10(2), 235–256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870601143927
Aliloupour, N. P. (2016). The impact of technology on the entertainment distribution market:
The effects of Netflix and Hulu on cable revenue [Unpublished senior thesis]. Scripps
College, Claremont, California.
Apple, T. (2020). Hustle your way to success in sports sales: Playbook to being elite in the
sports business industry. Sports Career Press.
Atcheson, S. (2018, September 25). Embracing diversity and fostering inclusion is good for your
business. Forbes. https://bit.ly/3kjvtf3
Bahm, A. J. (1993). Axiology: The science of values (Vol. 2). Rodopi.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004463615
Barron, F., Montuori, A., & Barron, A. (Eds.). (1997). Creators on creating. Awakening and
cultivating the imaginative mind. Tarcher/Putnam
Beaumont, P. (2004). Financial engineering principles: A unified theory for financial product
analysis and valuation. John Wiley & Sons.
Bergin, T. (2018). An introduction to data analysis: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
Sage.
224

Bhargava, H. K. (2021). The creator economy: Managing ecosystem supply, revenue-sharing
and platform design. University of California.
Bilton, C. (2019). The disappearing product and the new intermediaries. In M. Deuze & M.
Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 99–110).
Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.9
Bogler, M. (n.d.). What’s the difference between diversity, inclusion, and equity? General
Assembly. https://ga.co/3dxkx8R
Bolin, G. (2019). Value production in media industries and everyday life. In M. Deuze & M.
Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 111–120).
Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.10
Botto, R. (2018). Crowdsourcing for filmmakers: Indie film and the power of the crowd.
Routledge, Focal Press.
Bourdages, R. (2015). Investing in film: The 12.5 Secrets elite investors keep for themselves.
Elevado Media, Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development. Sage Publications.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random
House.
Cadigan, S. (2021). Workquake: Embracing the aftershocks of COVID-19 to create a better
model of working. Amplify Publishing.
Chan-Olmsted, S., & Wang, R. (2019). Shifts in consumer engagement and media business
models. In M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and
225

professions (pp. 133–146). Amsterdam University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.12
Chen, M., Sangaiah, A., & Chen, T. (2022). Deep Learning for Financial Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-022-10260-8
Clark, D. (2021). Stand out. Portfolio Penguin.
Cohen, R. (2022). Global diasporas: An introduction. Taylor & Francis.
Cones, J. W. (2008). 43 ways to finance your feature film: A comprehensive analysis of film
finance. Southern Illinois University Press.
Cones, J. W. (2013). Dictionary of film finance and distribution: A guide for independent
filmmakers. Algora Publishing.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/
vol1989/iss1/8
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Danyliuk, V., Riepina, I., Shafalyuk, O., Kovylina, M., & Nitsenko, V. (2020). Functional and
investment strategies of technical development of enterprises. Natsional’nyi Hirnychyi
Universytet. Naukovyi Visnyk, (3), 115–121.
Davis, N. (2018). The second coming: Why women filmmakers struggle to get their second Del
Barco features made. Another Gaze. https://bit.ly/2SEw4vC
De Vany, A. (2003). Hollywood economics: How extreme uncertainty shapes the film industry.
Routledge.
226

DeFillippi, R., Arthur, M., & Lindsay, V. (2009). Knowledge at work: Creative collaboration in
the global economy. John Wiley & Sons.
Del Barco, M. (2018). Hollywood diversity study finds ‘mixed bag’ when it comes to
representation. NPR. https://n.pr/10bnlI1
Del Barco, M. (2021a, April 7). ‘This is about lifting culture’ says history-making producer
Charles D. King. NPR. https://n.pr/3BpOODc
Del Barco, M. (2021b, September 20). What top film schools are doing to help diversify
Hollywood. NPR. https://n.pr/3j1wjy7
Deloitte. (2021). The future of the creative economy. https://bit.ly/3FmbI0V
Dei, G. J. S., & Dei, G. J. S. (2017). [Re] framing blackness and black solidarities through anti-
colonial and decolonial prisms: An introduction (pp. 1–30). Springer International
Publishing.
Diamandis, P. H., & Kotler, S. (2012). Abundance: The future is better than you think. Simon
and Schuster.
Diamandis, P. H., & Kotler, S. (2015). Bold: How to go big, create wealth and impact the world.
Simon & Schuster.
Diamandis, P. H., & Kotler, S. (2020). The future is faster than you think: How converging
technologies are transforming business, industries, and our lives. Simon & Schuster.
Donner, J. (2015). After access: Inclusion, development, and a more mobile Internet. MIT Press.
Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance (Vol. 234). Scribner.
Duckworth, A. L., & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and validation of the Short Grit Scale
(GRIT–S). Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166–174.
227

Deuze, M., & Prenger, M. (Eds.). (2019). Making media: Production, practices, and professions
(pp. 13–28). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.3
Duplass, J., & Duplass, M. (2018). Like brothers. Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C. (2015). Carol Dweck revisits the growth mindset. Education Week, 35(5), 20–24.
Eberhardt, J. L. (2020). Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think,
and do. Penguin Books.
Ebert, R. (2010, May 19) Cannes #7: A campaign for real movies. Roger Ebert’s Journal.
https://rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/cannes-7-a-campaign-for-real-movies
Eddy, K., & Eddy, D. (2021). The art of lean filmmaking: An unconventional guide to creating
independent feature films. Lean Filmmaking.
Edwards, K. (2021). The executive chair: A writer’s guide to TV series development. Michael
Wiese Productions.
Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for
sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.
https://doi.org/10.2107/41165746
Elkington, J. (2013). The triple bottom line. Routledge.
Elkington, J. (2020). Green swans: The coming boom in regenerative capitalism. Greenleaf
Book Group.
Ellwood, D. W. (1999). The undeclared war. The struggle for the control of the world’s film
industry. Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television, 19(2), 257.
Epstein, D. (2021). Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world. Penguin.
Erbland, K. (2017, July 24). Revenge of the auteur: As bloated franchises bomb, original stories
own the box. IndieWire. https://bit.ly/3MygqfB
228

Faustino, P., & Noam, E. (2019). Media industries’ management characteristics and challenges
in a converging digital world. In M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making media:
Production, practices, and professions (pp. 147–160). Amsterdam University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.13
Ferrari, A. (2020). Rise of the filmtrepreneur: How to turn your independent film into a
profitable business. Capricorn Book Publishing.
FilmFreeway (n.d.) How it Works. paragraph 1. Retrieved December 15, 2021.
https://filmfreeway.com/pages/how-it-works
Firsthand, (n.d.). Overview. https://bit.ly/3mJ2mn9
Follows, S. (2016). Do Hollywood movies make a profit? https://bit.ly/3sRZd7x
Follows, S. (2017). How many films are released each year? https://bit.ly/3ETIeYd
Follows, S. (2018). 48 trends reshaping the film industry Part 1: Development and finance.
https://bit.ly/2YyBiwG
Follows, S. (2022). Indie Film Strategy. https://bit.ly/3qkpCuB
Follows, S., Kreaker, A., & Gomes, E. (2016). Cut out of the picture: A study of gender
inequality amongst film directors in the UK film industry. Directors UK.
Fuller, T. (2003). If you wanted to know the future of small business what questions would you
ask? Futures, 35(4), 105–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00083-6
Galvez, E., & Muñoz, S. M. (2020). (Re) Imagining anti-colonial notions of ethics in research
and practice. Journal of College Student Development, 61(6), 781–796.
Gates, M. (2019). The moment of lift: How empowering women changes the world. Flatiron
Books.
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
229

Gidley, J. M., Hampson, G. P., Wheeler, L., & Bereded-Samuel, E. (2010). From access to
success: An integrated approach to quality higher education informed by social inclusion
theory and practice. Higher Education Policy, 23, 123–147.
Gilbert, E. (2016). Big magic: Creative living beyond fear. Penguin.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little Brown and Company.
Goodman, L. (1961). “Snowball sampling:” Annals of Mathematical Statistics.
http://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148.
Gonzalez, M. (2012). Mindful leadership: The 9 ways to self-awareness, transforming yourself,
and inspiring others. John Wiley & Sons.
Gordon, L. (2011). Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Not to become slaves of the knowledge of
others. Trans-pasando Fronteras,1, 1–5.
Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don’t know. Viking.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. Penguin.
Gupta, R. (2020). Predicting movie profitability and risk at the pre-production phase. Towards
Data Science. https://bit.ly/3lhwu9P
Haine, C., & Edelman, G. (2020). Sundance Institute’s Michelle Satter predicts the future of
indie filmmaking. No Film School. https://bit.ly/2WxiNG5
Hanauer, N. (2019). The dirty secret of capitalism - and a new way forward [Video]. YouTube.
https://bit.ly/3apXs93
Hawkins, D. R. (2011). Dissolving the ego, realizing the self: Contemplations from the teachings
of David R. Hawkins, MD, Ph. D. Hay House, Inc.
Heckhausen, J., & Dweck, C. S. (Eds.). (1998). Motivation and self-regulation across the life
span. Cambridge University Press.
230

Heller, M., & McElhinny, B. (2017). Language, capitalism, colonialism: Toward a critical
history. University of Toronto Press.
Hennig-Thurau, T., & Houston, M. B. (2019) Entertainment distribution decisions. In
entertainment science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89292-4_13
Hesmondhalgh, D., & Pratt, A. C. (2005). Cultural industries and cultural policy. International
Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 1–13.
Hillman, D. R., & Werner, T. K. (2017). Capturing generation‐based institutional knowledge
utilizing design thinking. Performance Improvement, 56(6), 28–36.
Holt, J., & Perren, A. (Eds.). (2011). Media industries: History, theory, and method. John Wiley
& Sons.
Holt, J., & Perren, A. (2019). Media industries: A decade in review. In M. Deuze & M. Prenger
(Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 31–44). Amsterdam
University Press.
Horn, J. (2020, September 10). Little has changed when it comes to who is making—and
starring—in Hollywood films. LAist. https://bit.ly/2WYfhZG
Horn, J., & Bushman, M. (2021, September 23). Barry Jenkins is optimistic about the future of
Hollywood: “I have to be.” LAist. https://bit.ly/3iMMUFq
Hunt, D., Ramon, A. C., & Shim, J. (2019). By All M.E.A.N.S. necessary: Essential practices for
transforming Hollywood diversity and inclusion. UCLA.
Hunt, D., Ramon, A. C., & Tran, M. (2019). Hollywood diversity report 2019: Old story. New
Beginnings. UCLA.
Hunt, D., Ramon, A. C., & Tran, M. (2020). Hollywood diversity report 2020: A tale of two
Hollywoods. UCLA College of Social Sciences.
231

Keeney, B. P. (2017). Aesthetics of change. Guilford Publications.
Kennedy, D. J. (2008). Led by the Carpenter: Finding God’s Purpose for Your Life. United
States: Thomas Nelson.
Kituyi, M. (2021). Creative economic outlook: Trends in international trade in creative
industries. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
https://bit.ly/3ByHKoa
Kripal, J. (2014) Comparing Religions. Wiley Publishing.
Koetsier, J. (2020, October 5). 2 million creators make 6-figure incomes on YouTube, Instagram,
Twitch globally. Forbes. https://bit.ly/3iOTCuE
LaPorte, L. D. (2017). Hustle: The identification of hustle in individuals. North Carolina State
University.
Lee, D., & Zoellner, A. (2019). Media production research and the challenge of normativity. In
M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions
(pp. 45–60). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.5
Lelis, L. H. (2021, January). Planning algorithms for zero-sum games with exponential action
spaces: A unifying perspective. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International
Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 4892–
4898).
Leung L. (2015). Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. Journal of
family medicine and primary care, 4(3), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-
4863.161306
232

Lewis, A. G. (2012). Ethics, activism and the anti-colonial: Social movement research as
resistance. Social Movement Studies, 11(2), 227–240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.664903
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,
and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research. Sage
Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and
why. Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325.
Mahanti, A. (2014). The evolving streaming media landscape. IEEE Internet Computing, 18(1),
4–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2014.16
Mahoney, T. A. (1979). Organizational hierarchy and position worth. Academy of Management
Journal, 22(4), 726–737.
Malloy, C. L. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International.
Market Reports World. (2022). Global entertainment and media market insights and forecast to
2028. https://bit.ly/37TVxvE
Martin, R., & Mikkelsen, K. (2019). The neo-generalist: Where you go is who you are. Lid
Publishing.
Mayer, C., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2021). Putting purpose into practice: The economics of
mutuality. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198870708.001.0001
Mayer, V., Banks, M. J., & Caldwell, J. T. (Eds.). (2009). Production studies. Routledge.
233

Meko, H. (2023). The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/nyregion/subway-
attack-woman-shoved-manhattan.html
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. ERIC Clearinghouse.
McNamee, S. J., & Miller, R. K. (2018). The meritocracy myth (4th ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
McPhillips, S., & Merlo, O. (2008). Media convergence and the evolving media business model:
An overview and strategic opportunities. Marketing Review, 8, 237–253.
https://doi.org/10.1362/146934708X337663
Mehta, R. (2017). “Hustling” in film school as socialization for early career work in media
industries. Poetics, 63, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2017.05.002
Mehta, R. (2015). Tacit anticipation among film students: An ethnography of making movies in
film school. University of Southern California.
Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807102811
Mertens, D. M. (2010). Philosophy in mixed methods teaching: The transformative paradigm as
illustration. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 4(1), 9–18.
https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2010.4.1.009
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Miège, B. (2019). Cultural and creative industries and the political economy of communication.
In M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions
(pp. 73–84). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.7
Montuori, A. (2011) Systems approach. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Creativity (2nd ed., pp. 414–421). Academic Press.
234

Moore, G. A., & McKenna, R. (1999). Crossing the chasm. Hyper Collins.
Moore, S. (2019, January 3). Most films lose money! Forbes. https://bit.ly/3oOd9iI
Mulcahy, D. (2013). Six myths about venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review.
https://bit.ly/3Bv5Q39
Mulcahy, D. (2016). The gig economy: The complete guide to getting better work, taking time
off, and financing the life you want. AMACOM.
Mulhere, K. (2018, February 27). Women need one more degree than men to earn the same
average salary. Money. https://bit.ly/2Z7GBle
Mullenbach, L. E., Breyer, B., Cutts, B. B., Rivers III, L., & Larson, L. R. (2022). An antiracist,
anticolonial agenda for urban greening and conservation. Conservation Letters, 15(4),
e12889.
Muralidhar, S. H., Bossen, C., & O’neill, J. (2019). Rethinking financial inclusion: From access
to autonomy. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 28, 511–547.
Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. SUNY Press.
Nieborg, D., Poell, T., & Deuze, M. (2019). The platformization of making media. In M. Deuze
& M. Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 85–96).
Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.8
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving
to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods.
The Numbers. (n.d.). Movie production countries. https://bit.ly/3lpZa0u
Page, S. (2017). The diversity bonus: How great teams pay off in the knowledge economy.
Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvc77c0h
235

Patel, N., Vlaskovits, P., & Koffler, J. (2016). Hustle: The power to charge your life with money,
meaning, and momentum. Rodale.
Perlas, N. (2003). Globalization, post-materialism and three folding. Globe Net, (3).
Porterfield, C. (2021, March 11). Report: Hollywood loses $10 billion a year over lack of Black
representation. Forbes. https://bit.ly/3arvutG
Redmond, E. (2021). Deep tech: Demystifying the breakthrough technologies that will
revolutionize everything. Deep Tech Press.
Regev, R. (2018). Working in Hollywood: How the studio system turned creativity into labor.
UNC Press Books.
Roche, B., & Jakub, J. (2017). Completing capitalism: Heal business to heal the world. Dovetail.
Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1),
3–22
Sacks, P. (2015). Why do elite students get elite jobs? Minding the Campus.
https://bit.ly/31aVXIr
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Schram, R. (2020). The state of the creator economy. Journal of Brand Strategy, 9(2), 152–162.
Sherbin, L., & Rashid, R. (2017, February 1). Diversity doesn’t stick without inclusion. Harvard
Business Review. https://bit.ly/3evDJoK
Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper and Brothers.
Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin.
Sinek, S. (2019). The infinite game. Penguin.
Smith, S. L., & Choueiti, M. (2013). Exploring the barriers and opportunities for independent
women filmmakers. University of Southern California.
236

Smith, S. L., Choueiti, M., Pieper, K., & Clark, H. (2019). Increasing inclusion in animation:
Investigating opportunities, challenges, and the classroom to the C-suite pipeline.
University of Southern California.
Smith, S. J., Penados, F., & Gahman, L. (2022). Desire over damage: Epistemological shifts and
anticolonial praxis from an indigenous‐led community health project. Sociology of Health
& Illness, 44, 124–141.
Spigel, B. (2020). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Theory, practice and futures. Elgar Publishing.
Statista. (n.d.). Value of the global entertainment and media market from 2011 to 2025.
https://bit.ly/3ttc4z5
Stein, A., & Evans, B. B. (2009). An introduction to the entertainment industry. Peter Lang.
https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-0250-9
Sundararajan, A. (2017). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-
based capitalism. MIT Press.
Takacs, D. (2003). How does your positionality bias your epistemology?
Taylor, J. C. (2021). Reset: A leader’s guide to work in an age of upheaval. Public Affairs.
Taylor, J. (2010). Film finance for beginners. Books by Jeffrey Taylor.
Team Slated (2016). White papers. https://filmonomics.slated.com/tagged/white-papers
Thacker, K. (2016). The art of authenticity: Tools to become an authentic leader and your best
self. John Wiley & Sons.
Thomas, N. (2009). Entangled objects: exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the
Pacific. Harvard University Press.
Thompson, D. (2017). Hit makers: How to succeed in an age of distraction. Penguin.
237

Towse, R. (2006). Human capital and artists’ labor markets. Handbook of the economic art and
culture (Vol. 1). Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.
Unger, S. M. (2014) We shouldn’t even know each other: A scholarly personal narrative of the
development of deeply reciprocal relationships across differences of race and class.
(Publication No. 3580471) [Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas]. ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Global. https://ir.stthomas.edu/caps_ed_lead_docdiss/44
University of Southern California. (2022). Doctor of Education in Organizational Change and
Leadership online. https://online.usc.edu/programs/organizational-change-leadership
Villi, M., & Picard, R. G. (2019). Transformation and innovation of media business models. In
M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions
(pp. 121–132). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.11
Vogel, H. L. (2015). Entertainment industry economics: A guide for financial analysis (9th ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
Vonderau, P. (2019). Access and mistrust in media industries research. In M. Deuze & M.
Prenger (Eds.), Making media: Production, practices, and professions (pp. 61–72).
Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2107/j.ctvcj105r.6
Wane, N. N., & Gathenya, W. T. (2003). The yokes of gender and class: The policy reforms and
implications for equitable access to education in Kenya. Managing Global Transitions,
1(2), 169.
Wells, C. (2016). Equity crowdfunding for independent film and the JOBS Act: Sizing the market
potential of Title III. The Leonard N. Stern School of Business.
238

Weprin, A. (2021, May 12). Tech giants drive gold rush on the creator economy. Hollywood
Reporter, 427, 20–21.
Wheatley, M. J. (2005). Inclusive innovation. Leadership Excellence, 22(10), 8–9.
Wheelan, C. (2019). Naked economics: Undressing the dismal science. WW Norton &
Company.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Fernwood Publishing.
World Economic Forum. (2021). The future of media: A new framework for valuing content.
https://bit.ly/3v6PQSn
Yuan, Y. (2020). SignalFire’s creator economy market map [Blog post]. https://bit.ly/3iPzc4S

239

Appendix A: Research Design Matrix for Qualitative Study Portion
Appendix A: Research Design Matrix for Qualitative Study Portion
Questions for industry professionals and investors of independent film
What are the
research
questions? What
do I need/want to
know? (Use one
row per RQ)
Overall approach:

What overall
methodological
approach do I
think is
appropriate for this
research question
and why?
Quantitative,
Qualitative, or
Mixed? Why is
this choice
appropriate?
Participants and settings:

Who (what kind of
person) and where
(what
site(s)/setting(s))
specifically do I think
I will sample for this
research question?
Who has the answer to
my research question?
Where will I find
them? Why are these
the right stakeholders
to include?
Data collection
methods:

What specific
methods do I think
I will use at this
time to answer this
research question?
What methods will
I use to collect
data? How will I
get the answer to
this research
question?
How or where do
you find
independent
filmmakers for
potential
collaboration?
Qualitative: I will be
collecting this data
through narrative
conversations of
personal
experiences.
Film Industry leaders
Decision makers
(specifically
development and
acquisitions)
Professional filmmakers
who have worked
their way up through
the existing system.
Financiers of
independent film
DEI Initiative leaders
Conversations with
industry
connections,
professional
colleagues,
connections from
industry networks
and cold calls to
leaders in the field.
What characteristics
of an independent
filmmaker do you
value most?
Qualitative: I will be
collecting this data
through narrative
conversations of
personal
experiences.
Film industry leaders
Decision makers
(specifically
development and
acquisitions)
Professional filmmakers
who have worked
their way up through
the existing system.
Financiers of
independent film
DEI Initiative leaders
Conversations with
industry
connections,
professional
colleagues,
connections from
industry networks
and cold calls to
leaders in the field.
240

Questions for industry professionals and investors of independent film
What experience are
you looking for
when it comes to
identifying early
career talent?
Qualitative: I will be
collecting this data
through narrative
conversations of
personal
experiences.
Film industry leaders
Decision makers
(specifically
development and
acquisitions)
Professional filmmakers
who have worked
their way up through
the existing system.
Financiers of
independent film
DEI Initiative leaders
Conversations
with industry
connections,
professional
colleagues,
connections
from industry
networks and
cold calls to
leaders in the
field.

241

Appendix B: Research Design Matrix for Quantitative Study Portion
Appendix B: Research Design Matrix for Quantitative Study Portion
Questions for individual independent filmmakers
Research questions:
What are the
research
questions? What
do I need/want to
know? (Use one
row per RQ)
Overall approach:
What overall
methodological
approach do I
think is
appropriate for this
research question
and why?
Quantitative,
Qualitative, or
Mixed? Why is
this choice
appropriate?
Participants and settings:
Who (what kind of
person) and where
(what
site(s)/setting(s))
specifically do I think
I will sample for this
research question?
Who has the answer to
my research question?
Where will I find
them? Why are these
the right stakeholders
to include?
Data collection
methods: What
specific methods
do I think I will use
at this time to
answer this
research question?
What methods will
I use to collect
data? How will I
get the answer to
this research
question?
Growth mindset measurement (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree)
You have a certain
amount of talent,
and you can’t
really do much to
change it.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Your talent is
something about
you that you can’t
change very
much.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
You can learn new
skills, but you
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
242

Questions for individual independent filmmakers
can’t change your
basic talent.
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
independent/early
career filmmaker.
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Grit measurement (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree)
I often set a
[filmmaking] goal
but later choose
to pursue a
different one.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
New [filmmaking]
ideas and projects
sometimes
distract me from
my previous ones.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
I become interested
in new
[filmmaking]
pursuits every
few months.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
243

Questions for individual independent filmmakers
My [filmmaking]
interests change
from year to year.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
I have been
obsessed with a
certain
[filmmaking] idea
or project for a
short time but
later lose interest.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
I have difficulty
maintaining my
focus on
[filmmaking]
projects that take
more than a few
months to
complete.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
I have achieved a
[filmmaking] goal
that took years of
work.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
244

Questions for individual independent filmmakers
I have overcome
setbacks to
conquer an
important
challenge.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
I finish whatever I
begin.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Setbacks don’t
discourage me.
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
I am a hard worker. Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
245

Questions for individual independent filmmakers
I am diligent. Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Value expressions of hustle for independent filmmakers and content creators (1 = highest
priority, where I focus my energy, 6 = lowest priority, I don’t put my energy here)
Film school
education
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Film festivals Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Development labs,
diversity
initiatives, and
training programs
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
246

Questions for individual independent filmmakers
filmmakers across
the globe.
Filmmaking grants
and fellowships
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Internships and
professional
shadowing
programs
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Volunteering on
productions and
at events
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Crowdfunding
campaigns
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
247

Questions for individual independent filmmakers
filmmakers across
the globe.
Industry-related
professional
career and
contract work
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Building my
audience,
followers, and
subscribers
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Packaging my
intellectual
property
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Creating content Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
248

Questions for individual independent filmmakers
filmmakers across
the globe.
Distributing content Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Paying my investors
back
Quantitative: I will
create a survey
with many existing
options of value
points, and my
goal is to collect
data from 100
independent
filmmakers across
the globe.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as an
independent/early
career filmmaker.
Online anonymous
survey for anyone
who identifies as
an
independent/early
career filmmaker.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This research addresses content creators and independent filmmakers seeking investment in their original intellectual property projects. Establishing individual independent filmmakers within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, this structural framework was used to understand the barriers to financial support and investment as creators navigate a theoretical talent pipeline to the entertainment industry environment. A mixed-methods approach was used with a quantitative survey to better understand the creator’s value as head (growth mindset), heart (grit, passion, and perseverance), and hustle (effort, habitual practices, and the accumulation of institutional knowledge). Interviews were conducted with established industry professionals and independent film investors to better understand how, where, and why they choose specific filmmakers for financial opportunities. The research herein intended to provide additional information for artists, content creators, and independent filmmakers seeking investment by comparing the filmmaker value findings with investors’ practices. This cross reference provided additional data metrics on improving data collection for talent discovery databases that list filmmakers for potential investment validation and competency models of early career filmmaking talent, ultimately inviting a more holistic understanding of the creator’s viability for investments. This data could include insights for more informed decision making and a stronger industry that may lead to more equitable access to opportunity and reliable information for future investment decision making. Additionally, a greater understanding of the creator’s head, heart, and hustle as valuation metrics through such financial engineering theory proposals may add to education and awareness for early career content creators and independent filmmakers on their creative career trajectories as well as drive more equitable access alongside limiting liability and reducing risk on early-career creator investment decision making.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The significance of investigating the absence of Black decision-makers in television and feature films

Asset Metadata

Creator Warren, Breven Angaelica (author)

Core Title Head, heart, and hustle: exploring the value of independent filmmakers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/19/2023

Defense Date 07/11/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag artist access,artist development,artist support,content,content creation,content creator,creative economy,creative entrepreneur,creator economy,economy of entertainment,Entertainment,entertainment industry,equitable access,film,film development,film fellowship,film festival,film financing,film funding,film industry,film investing,film value,filmmaker,filmmaker lab,filmmaker value,Financial Engineering,gig economy,grit,growth mindset,hustle,independent film,independent filmmaker,intellectual property,investing,investment,Media,OAI-PMH Harvest,regenerative capitalism,return on investment,systemic practice,talent development,talent discovery,talent pipeline,talent scouting,talent workforce,valuation,Value

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Ferrario, Kim (committee member)

Creator Email angaelica@gmail.com,bawarren@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113378612

Unique identifier UC113378612

Identifier etd-WarrenBrev-12396.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-WarrenBrev-12396

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Warren, Breven Angaelica

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230920-usctheses-batch-1099 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu