The opening gala at the Rhode Island International Film Festival is a spectacle. In August, outside the ornate 3,300-seat theatre lay an array of free-flowing alcohol, tasty hors d’oeuvres and celebrities. Before the screening of short films, board president Michael Drywa waxed poetic about the calibre of the film-makers, many of whom recently arrived from other states or countries and were dressed to the nines.

To those in other industries who observed this atmosphere of celebration, it may have been surprising to learn that nobody at the festival was making any money. Film festivals are barely solvent and film-makers even less so. Gone Fishing, the short that won Rhode Island’s 2008 Grand Prize and was shortlisted for an Academy Award, was made for an estimated £23,000 and has since made back less than half … it’s one of the industry’s success stories.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The trailer for Gone Fishing, winner of the 2008 Rhode Island International Film Festival Grand Prize

The elaborate display of this year’s festival is a product of the industry’s harsh realities. Tens of thousands of people want to be film-makers and the industry can only support a few. Last year, 8,161 short films were submitted to the Sundance Film Festival, a number that has been steadily increasing. Of those, only 66 were selected.

It’s no wonder there are so many short films; they provide an outlet for creative expression, an opportunity for learning and the chance to be discovered. For some, success is such a prize that it justifies any level of investment. In the US, crowdfunding campaigns and maxed-out credit cards fund most films, supplemented by occasional grants. Self-funded films usually can’t afford to pay their entire crew. In the UK and many European countries, governments sometimes fund shorts as an investment in budding film-makers.

“It’s cheaper to make a short film,” says Sundance short film programmer Mike Plante. “You can take bigger risks; it’s less money and time.” Practising the craft can be a more powerful, quicker and less expensive education than film school.

“The real profit is when you get to make another film,” says Kimberley Browning, director of Hollywood Shorts. “You build peer relationships that are critical to your creative growth. In the end, we are our own marketers and a short allows us to build our audiences: having 5,000 email addresses changes the way you can get your film out there.”

One never knows (and it is impossible to predict) when a screening will lead to the perfect collaborator, an interested agent or a meeting with someone who will help finance the big feature film. But festivals are expensive. Most in the US charge anywhere between $30 (£19) and $100 (£63) for submission, they accept very few films and many don’t pay a fee if the film is shown. Film-makers can travel thousands of miles on their own dime (and time) to arrive in almost empty screening room. On top of this, some festivals won’t allow film-makers to release their films online for fear of cannibalising ticket sales.

The free internet: the ultimate loss leader

My first short, Shabbat Dinner, about two kids coming out, was released in 2012 and played in over 50 film festivals (I travelled to 24 of them.) When I released it on Amazon and realised it was making $200 (£127) per month, I saw that the film would be better served by a free release and embarked on a month of advocacy to build a grassroots campaign. On YouTube, it racked up over 100,000 views, 40 times its previous festival audience.

The internet, and especially the free internet, promises to truly unlock the possibility of the loss-leading short. Views and followers are more persuasive to Hollywood players than festival acceptances (other than to the top fests.) This online traction also enables film-makers to launch themselves without having to ask for permission.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Lily in the Grinder

WARNING: some strong language

I released my next short, Lily in the Grinder, in a way that blended festivals, paid online release and free release. We hosted sponsored screenings in movie theatres with live Q&A sessions. We submitted it everywhere. After a few festival showings, it launched online with a new model: $4 for the film plus special features, or free in exchange for a Facebook share of the trailer, embeddable in any website. The result has been a hybrid of festival notoriety and viral online viewing. To further increase views, I’ve made the film free for Thanksgiving, until Sunday.

The free internet has thrown the playing field wide open, tipping the scale towards those with fewer resources. A team of several dozen and a trust fund is no longer necessary to create and distribute a film, and we’ve only begun to reap the rewards of this revolution.

Democratisation brings a wholly new playing field that encourages cheaper content and can sometimes make it harder for thoughtful work to stand out. TheYouTube economy rewards capturing attention in the first five seconds more than a slow build to a wondrous payoff. Those who create and iterate quickly have an advantage over those who take their time.

The future of short film distribution is as uncertain as that of an individual film-maker’s career. Fortunately, the process is immeasurably rewarding. “It’s not about arriving with film-making,” says Matthew Murdoch, a London-based shorts film-maker. “It’s just something that once you decide to do it, you’re doing it for life, and on the way you might make a couple good films.”

Michael Morgenstern is a director, producer and writer – follow him on Twitter@mikemorgenstern

More like this

• Why the British film industry is not thriving

• The importance of storytelling in the digital age

Join our community of arts, culture and creative professionals by signing up free to the Guardian Culture Pros Network.