More Movies Trying Out Tiered CwF+RtB Support Models

from the fun-to-watch-this-in-action dept

We're getting so many examples of content creators making use of CwF+RtB business models lately, that it's difficult to figure out which ones are worth posting. Mostly, of course, we're still hearing about the music industry, where these sorts of models are becoming more common, but here are two interesting ones that are in the movie business, where such models haven't been as common. The first, pointed out by rosspruden is about a Spanish film called The Cosmonaut which has a few unique features surrounding it. Ross listed them out:

1. the filmmakers are releasing their work under a CC license to let others mix and reuse their film.
2. the film is fully funded from fan donations (so the film never needs to turn a profit)
3. profits are generated from sales of scarce goods
4. fans are allowed to invest in the project for real financial profit (not virtual profit), which isn't allowed according to SEC regulations (yet)

The fan funding element is definitely interesting -- though I'm still not convinced that investing for real financial profit really works that well in these situations. As we've seen with things like Sellaband's problems, those can have downsides as well. Money is one incentive, but certainly not the only one. And, with crowdfunding projects, it often seems like giving the crowdfunders financial (as opposed to non-financial) incentives can lead to problems. People get less into supporting the content creators and then start worrying about what they might get back out of it. This isn't to say it can't work, but it has pitfalls. Still, either way, it's definitely nice to see the Creative Commons license on the film, and the plan to let others not just watch it, but remix and reuse the film.

The second example comes from Ryan Estrada, who is involved in a project to create an animated romantic horror-comedy that is using a crowdfunding model as well, with the focus on being able to get "in the movie" in some manner.

This isn't entirely new. We've seen some other movies do the same -- and even just the idea of getting your name in the credits (the cheapest option) was something that filmmakers like Kevin Smith have done in the past (though, not for money). However, I think this actually works especially well in an animated movie. One of the (quite reasonable) concerns that filmmakers have expressed in hearing about fan funding movie projects that involve "get a part in the movie" is that this could seriously diminish the quality of the movie if the fans can't act. But with an animated film, the idea is that you send in an image, and then an animated "you" shows up in the film. That seems to work a lot better, and to build a real connection with the fans.

Again, I'm not saying either of these will be success stories, but they're two recent attempts at trying something new in filmmaking, and both seemed worth mentioning and discussing here.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, cwf+rtb, filmmakers, movie industry
Companies: sellaband

SellaBand Bankruptcy Shows Poor Execution; Not A Condemnation Of Fan Funding

from the too-bad,-but... dept

With the news that SellaBand has filed for bankruptcy, we've been seeing some gloating among those who don't believe in direct-to-fan or fan-supported business models for music -- suggesting that Sellaband's failure is an indication that those models don't work. Of course, that's kind of like arguing that the personal computer industry is a failure because Osborne went out of business. Sellaband wasn't the first in the market, but certainly was a pioneer in promoting fan-focused business models. But a lot of Sellaband's troubles came down not to the model, but to actual execution. Every time we'd post about Sellaband, we'd receive a bunch of emails and comments from people who had really bad experiences working with the company.

Unlike the more recent crop of companies in this space, that appear to be a lot more flexible, Sellaband was pretty rigid in its setup. Rather than designing itself as a platform for fan funding, it tried to position itself as a label that also used fan funding -- but that required doing a lot of stuff that labels help with, and one of the complaints with Sellaband was that it wasn't well setup to handle much of that. Separately, unlike other fan funding options, Sellaband used to require a band to raise $50,000 -- which is a lot more than many bands might need. Eventually this changed, but it made things slow going for Sellaband. Furthermore, one of the bigger problems with Sellaband was that it didn't quite have the model right. It did very little to encourage actual connecting with fans, and never did a really good job setting things up so fans had a good reason to buy. Sellaband seemed to assume that people would just support a band for an "investment" in their album. But that mucked up the fan relationship a bit. Fans support a band because they want quality product (music, experience, access) back, not potential monetary returns.

The failure of Sellaband is a failure of execution, but certainly not of the idea that you can create models that allow content creators to build business models by getting fans to support them via more creative business models.

Filed Under: fan funding
Companies: sellaband

Public Enemy Not Selling Well Enough On Sellaband: What Went Wrong?

from the connect-with-fans,-give-them-a-reason-to-buy dept

There have been a bunch of companies popping up lately that have allowed bands to help "pre-finance" an album, by getting fans to commit to pay up in exchange for some sort of added benefit. We've covered in great detail how Jill Sobule successfully used just such a method (on her own, not with a startup) to finance her last album. Earlier this year, though, the concept got a lot of attention when the group Public Enemy signed up with the company SellABand to try to raise $250,000 by the end of the year to finance its latest album. While we were impressed by such a well-known act trying such a system, we did note when it was announced that the "benefit" given by the group didn't really seem that compelling. The pricing seemed quite high for what people were getting, and there was little effort to actually "connect with fans." It was really just a very high-priced way of getting people to fund the next album.

So it doesn't come as much of a surprise that Public Enemy is struggling to reach its goal. It has raised over $70,000, which is nothing to complain about, but that's well short of the $250,000 goal.

There are definitely some important lessons to be learned from this. These sorts of models require a lot more than just putting it out there and expecting fans to automatically support you, no matter how big an act you might be. Jill Sobule worked really hard to cultivate and connect with her committed fanbase, and that's what helped her hit her goal. Public Enemy didn't seem to put much effort into that at all. Second, pricing really does matter. In giving people a "reason to buy" something, that doesn't mean you just slap a price on stuff. The price needs to be reasonable and make sense to people. Public Enemy's offerings just seemed pricey all around, even to fans of the group. At $100 you got a CD and a chance to buy a second CD at 50%, along with your name in a booklet? Eh. What's so exciting about that. At $250 they add in a t-shirt? That's $150 just for a t-shirt? You had to go all the way up to $500 before they would even autograph the CD. Sure, $1,000 for a 3 year unlimited backstage pass could be cool if you were going to see the band a lot, but that was the first offering that really seemed potentially worth the money for a serious fan.

So, I think there are some important lessons here. We've mainly focused on pulling lessons from the success stories, but the lessons from failures can be just as valuable. And, in this case, it goes back to our standard formula of Connect with Fans (CwF) and give them a Reason to Buy (RtB). Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Public Enemy really did much of either. They just expected the fans to come to them, and they priced everything too high, without giving really compelling lower end options. Because of that, they certainly got some people to pay up -- and, again, raising $70,000 is nothing to put down -- but it fell well short of the goal. In some ways, what they did is like a cargo cult: copying all the superficial aspects of what worked before, but not the really important stuff.

Filed Under: connecting with fans, public enemy, reason to buy, support, tiers
Companies: sellaband

Public Enemy Trying To Get A Little Help From Its Friends

from the holding-songs-hostage dept

SellaBand is known for funding musicians' albums with contributions from fans -- contributions that not only help to record the music but also entitle the paying fans to a share of the revenues from the album after it's released. Up until now, the artists using SellaBand have not exactly been household names, making it susceptible to Masnick's law where critics could say SellaBand is only good for small bands. However, Chuck D and Public Enemy are aiming to prove that a big-name act can solicit $250,000 from fans to finance their next album. It's actually not all that surprising that Chuck D would go this route. You may not remember, but when Lars Ulrich from Metallica first freaked out about Napster, it was Chuck D who publicly debated him, and said that file sharing was "the new radio" and it was time to embrace it. Chuck D also testified before the Senate about how file sharing was a great distribution mechanism, and the recording industry was making a mistake trying to stop it. So you had to figure he'd be a fan of trying out smarter, fan-focused business models.

Similar to efforts by Trent Reznor, Jill Sobule, Kickstarter and many others, SellaBand also has a system of fan-fundable tiers for its artists. For Public Enemy, supporters can buy into the project in $25 shares in order for Public Enemy to reach its ultimate quarter million dollar goal. And the more shares you buy, the more you get.

• 1 Part ($25) = "Believer" Level Incentive: Exclusive, numbered CD in Digipak
• 4 Parts ($100) = "Hype" Level Incentive: "Believer" Level, plus the opportunity to buy 2nd CD at 50% off, & Name in booklet
• 10 Parts ($250) = "Rebel" Level Incentive: All of Above plus Exclusive Limited Edition Public Enemy T Shirt
• 20 Parts ($500) = "Posse" Level Incentive: All of Above plus Autographed Copy of CD signed by Chuck D
• 40 Parts ($1,000) = "Terrordome" Level Incentive: All of Above plus Unlimited backstage pass for 3 years [Limited to 50]
• 200 Parts ($5,000) = "Bring The Noise" Level Incentive: All of Above plus Executive Producer Credit on Album [Limited to 15]
• 400 Parts ($10,000) = "PE Number One" Level Incentive: All of Above plus Studio Visit during recording session [Limited to 5]

But unlike Josh Freese, Public Enemy's tiers are missing a certain je ne sais quoi that could connect with fans or give them a compelling reason to buy a 3-year backstage pass for $1,000. These tiers lack some authenticity to me, though I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Public Enemy. But honestly, I can't really tell if Public Enemy came up with these levels -- because they sound so standard (especially if you look at other SellaBand artist tiers). Not to knock Public Enemy too hard, but they really should put a bit more effort into something like this. And SellaBand might also benefit from looking into floundering Kickstarter projects to perhaps get a better grasp of how to promote artists that aren't quite reaching their fund goals. One of the lessons learned is that contributing fans want to see some involvement and interactions -- you can't just set it and forget it -- if you're asking fans to part with a few thousand dollars. But on the other hand, SellaBand doesn't seem to have goal deadlines, so Public Enemy might have the fame and patience to attract 10,000 fans willing to fork over $25 each.

Filed Under: chuck d, fan funded, music, public enemy, rtb
Companies: sellaband

Sellaband CDs To Be Available On Amazon; Not As Big A Deal As You Think

from the step-in-the-right-direction dept

For all the awful stories we have around here concerning the record labels making dumb mistakes in dealing with the modern market, we've always been optimistic that others will figure out the new business models eventually (and what's left of the record labels will either co-opt those models or die). There are certainly a few interesting companies out there, experimenting with a variety of models -- and one of the most interesting has been Sellaband. The Amsterdam-based company has put in place a more formalized version of a model that's been discussed for years: getting a wide variety of fans to pony up small amounts of money into a pool, which the band can then use to record, press and distribute its album. Sellaband has done a few nice things on top of that. Everyone who ponies up for a "share" has the potential of getting some money back from sales of the albums or from ad revenue from the band's page. The music is still given away for free for promotional purposes, and there are a number of other nice features as well -- including letting the band (rather than the company) retain the rights to the music after a certain time period. While some folks may never get their money back, they're still supporting the music, and at least there's a chance they'd get their money back, rather than shipping it off to an RIAA label.

Of course, the big trick for an outfit like Sellaband is getting that critical mass of users, and certainly a deal with Amazon.com could help, which is why it was exciting to see a bunch of headlines indicating that Amazon has now partnered with Sellaband. However, the details suggest this may not be as big a deal as various blogs and press outlets are making it out to be. It doesn't sound like this is really Amazon supporting the Sellaband process -- just selling the completed CDs that Sellaband releases. That's really not such a big deal, as it's not all that hard to get your CDs sold via Amazon. In fact, while the announcements keep saying that Amazon "announced a partnership" with Sellaband, the details suggest that Sellaband simply secured distribution through Amazon via Digital Orchard -- who helps lots of musicians sell their stuff on Amazon. Amazon doesn't seem to have a press release up or anything -- so it may just be Sellaband "announcing" things and the press misinterpreting it (though, Sellaband did get a quote from someone at Amazon). It would be a lot more powerful if the rest of the Sellaband process was available via Amazon and if Amazon were really bought into the process, rather than just offering a simple retail outlet that almost anyone can sign up for. Also, while many are saying that this covers all of Amazon, it appears that it's really only for Amazon UK. Overall, this isn't a bad thing, but it may not be as big a deal as some think it is.

Filed Under: business models, music
Companies: amazon, sellaband