Winning Funding

Winning Funding

There is a moment with every company where some funding (usually public) becomes available and there is a notion that applying for that funding would help the company grow/develop/diversify/compete/distribute or pivot. Every company that applies for funding feels that their proposals are rational, reasonable and obvious and therefore should be granted. As someone who assesses funding proposals for a number of public sector organisations I have spent a lot of time wondering where on earth the proposal has come from and how did the company applying even begin to think that their application is acceptable - for a whole range of different reasons. This post is my attempt to lay out the main causes of why funding applications don't get accepted.

Read the god-damn form!

It is simply astonishing how many funding applications are never assessed just simply because the applicant did not read and understand the criteria for a successful bid. If the form has a deadline date then meet it. If the fund has a maximum bid value then don't exceed it. If the fund excludes certain activities or items then don't include them. It's probably fair to say that 30%-40% of funding applications have some transgression of the bid guidelines embedded within submitted forms - its then in the lap of the gods as to if anyone reads it. If you don't understand whether something your adding to your bid is excluded then ask ...

The Basics

Spelling! Grammar! Paragraphs! Punctuation!

Purpose

The funding body will always provide a rationale for applicants as to what the fund is for and what impact it should have. Typically its along the lines of jobs, business and wealth creation but there are sometimes some more social impact outcomes or learning outcomes that can come in the mix. The application MUST take these into account. If your proposal does not create a job (or sustain an existing one), create a new business (or accelerate and existing one) or does not create a significant and sustainable new revenue stream then its difficult to see why it would make the grade. Public money is scarce and funds need to justify the awards they make, so make it easier for them to rule in your favour and clearly identify which outcome you meet and to what degree.

Realism

Within the creative sectors specifically but across the board in general you need to keep your application realistic. Don't inflate the price of something because you think you can get away with it - the assessors are not stupid and can use Google. Its disappointing to have to downgrade someone's perfectly sound idea because they got excited about the prospect of the money and made this schoolboy error when doing the budget. If your proposal looks realistically costed and looks tight in terms of spend then that's a huge positive for your application.

Think Big

Its true that a lot of local causes suffer when trying to get the necessary funds together to keep sub-regional community and culture alive. Remote communities often would like something that is specific to them (magazine, film etc.) and will submit funding applications on the assumption that the rural side of life is no different to the townies. I sympathise here, its a way of life that needs support and preserving - but this is unlikely to be the scenario with most funding schemes. The rural communities, niche causes and colloquial organisations need to think big, be bold and look further than the end of their garden. Thinking big is not turning a 5 minute film into a 15 minute film. Thinking big is making a 5 minute film, adding Japanese sub titles and then taking it to Japanese film festivals. Showing local content locally makes no sense for the assessors so look further afield and shoot for the moon with every proposal.

Sustainability

This is a hard one for most people who might apply for funding. The issue here is making the most impact for the money your given. Its easier to approve a bid that says "We're going to make enough money from this film to make our next one without your help". That notion that a sustainable set of activities is created by the funding award makes it a lot more likely that you will get short listed and/or get the award. Personally I would love to see an application that says "We're going to use any excess revenues to give our own funding award to someone to the same value as the one we might receive" - but I've yet to read that on an application. Passing the benefit on and creating activities that become self-propelling have to be the underlying aim for the awarding body.

Feedback

Most awarding bodies will send feedback to the unsuccessful applicants to let them know how they did. The number one thing is to not take it personally. Your idea was simply not good enough. These things tend to be uber competitive so if you just did the bare minimum it probably wasn't sufficient. The feedback is carefully considered and you should see it as an action list for another application the next time funding is available. Every failed submission takes you closer to an accepted one, its a learning curve (sometimes steep) like most other things in life. Get over it and start work on your next great idea and make sure the next submission is better than the last. If you don't understand the feed back then ask for a meeting - any good funding body should give you the time to understand where you might have not scored so well.

Summary

- Read the form, understand the form, stick to the form.

- Spelling, grammar, punctuation - their not optional, use them.

- Stick to the purpose of the award, meet the criteria.

- Keep it real, you will get caught out.

- Think big, shoot for the moon!

- Can you idea persist and become sustainable, if it can it should.

- Feedback is not criticism its a positive learning experience.