Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
Right now there is something of a novelty factor with celebrities and Kickstarter, and each time one of them uses it, it's a new story. Particularly when each project raises more money than the previous project. Each new record becomes a story.
When they all use Kickstarter, then we'll see if it continues to work for them all or if celebrity crowdfunding fatigue sets in. I have no idea, although I think the overall trend will be to continue to drive down the costs of creative creations so there isn't reason to need to raise much money in the first place.
Perhaps at some point it will all be so commonplace, the media will look else where for stories.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
This is not a question unique to crowdfunding. Why should I pay for a movie ticket when Tom Cruise is already rich?
And the Rolling Stones are discovering that people don't want to pay a lot of money to see them.
As more people discover they can be entertained and entertain themselves without spending a lot of money, I think we will see more of this. And I think a lot of people are too broke to fund rich celebrities anyway.
We'll have to see what happens when lots of celebrities use Kickstarter and if the odds of success decrease as more use the platform.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
Why does a project even need all of the money that Braff and others need? Why do expenses have to be high? Why can't he self fund? Where is the money going to?
This are all reasonable questions. Maybe the problem is that the system is so screwed up that it is too expensive for Braff to self fund.
Or maybe he shouldn't be doing projects so big that he can't self fund.
If little people can fund movies out of their own pockets and get friends to work for free, why not Braff?
Why does creativity need to cost anyone any money?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
That makes them biased toward safe projects, not large ones. In fact they are well served by having lots of projects in many different areas more than they would by having a few large ones, because that reduces the risk of large scale failure.
There are ways to play the game. Amanda Palmer set her goal way lower than she knew she could hit. And she combined three different projects (an album, a tour, and a book) into one project to cover a lot of bases and raise a bigger amount.
Look, I like Kickstarter. And I like the idea of crowdfunding. I like even better the idea of crowdsourcing and eliminating the need for fundraising altogether.
I'm just explaining that financial support of creativity that has nuances that are worthy to be explored.
It is reasonable for people to ask why someone who has already been well-paid by the system needs to crowdfund. Why do the "rich" need people to give them money? That's part of the bigger question of world economics.
I've given a longer explanation elsewhere, but I'll put this in its own post so more see it.
Some of you seem to be assuming that anyone who wants to crowdfund can use Kickstarter as long as they pay the necessary fees.
That's never been the case. You apply to Kickstarter. Some projects aren't accepted. Kickstarter wants projects to succeed and keeps track of what percentage of projects make their goals and how much those projects raise. And then it publicizes those success stories.
So that's one reason why people have been discussing whether they will be shut out as big stars start using the platform more.
Of course, Kickstarter isn't the only game in town, and as crowdfunding expands there will be lots of different ways it is being handled. I'm big on participatory creativity and my personal preference is that the projects become crowdsourced, rather than crowdfunded.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
"Not necessarily from potential donors, but from companies which might assign people to pay attention to the big stars and ignore the little ones."
I meant Kickstarter. Some creatives are concerned that Kickstarter will begin to ignore them and not put in any effort to help them out.
The other thing to consider is that Kickstarter isn't the only game in town, nor is it unique. If true independents feel edged out of Kickstarter, there's nothing to stop them going to IndieGoGo or someone from setting up a more focussed new site based on the same concepts. Kickstarter happen to be the most talked about brand name in the field, not the only choice.
That's what I think will happen. If Kickstarter becomes associated with big stars and loses its "soul" then less known artists may go elsewhere.
There's no particular reason to use Kickstarter if Kickstarter doesn't enhance your ability to raise more money. And if you find yourself being drowned out by bigger projects, you may find no value in it. Or, more likely, as crowdfunding becomes more popular, the big stars will just crowdfund directly from their own sites and not bother to pay a 5% fee to Kickstarter.
As I pointed out before, there are lots of different reasons people are motivated contribute to Kickstarter projects. Crowdfunding efforts can become more specialized as the concept expands. The people who want to buy new products may go one place. The people who want to help unknown artists may go to another place. The people who want to associate with famous creatives will go elsewhere.
Ultimately the issue won't be with crowdfunding, but whether Kickstarter can continue to define itself in comparison to other crowdfunding sites. eBay and Amazon benefit from bigness because people go to those sites specifically to buy something and comparison shop. The more stuff there is, the more they can find. But relatively few people go to Kickstarter simply to crowdfund, because relatively few people are thinking, "I've got money. What deserving project can I support?" That's how arts charities sometimes are run (i.e., getting people to donate), but there's a lot of marketing to potential donors to have that happen. And then you get into the competition factor of which artists are the arts foundations going to support.
Since Kickstarter says it isn't a marketplace in the usual sense, size may not help it. If anything, Kickstarter has benefited as a place where potential projects have been curated. Not everyone is allowed to use the platform. So, who does Kickstarter include and who doesn't it include? That's what is being sorted out now.
Although some of you think Kickstarter has no say in who gets to use it for fundraising, that isn't the case. Projects are rejected. And if everyone tried to use it, even if they had no chance to raise money, Kickstarter's failure rate would go up and reflect negatively on Kickstarter. Unlike some sites which don't monitor whether people make money using the platform, Kickstarter does do that. Its image and publicity is tied up in how much people raise and how much the projects exceed their goals. It's not an indifferent platform, as some of you seem to think. It's never been open to everyone, unlike, say Twitter. It is curated.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
I'll give you an example of what creatives sometimes run into. I've had a literary agent and have talked to a number of others. What most of them will usually tell you is this: "It takes as much effort to sell a $100,000 project as it does to sell a $1 million project, so I am going to focus on the ones with the bigger potential payouts."
My agent told me she wouldn't pitch magazine articles, but she would handle books, preferable blockbuster books.
So these creatives who have had to scramble to raise whatever funds they can are worried that once the stars come into the picture, they'll get pushed aside. If Kickstarter starts to court the stars, the unknown creatives may find less help and attention for themselves. Not necessarily from potential donors, but from companies which might assign people to pay attention to the big stars and ignore the little ones.
Twitter did it when it was launching. It was providing special attention to celebrities in ways that it wasn't doing for the average Twitter user.
Most of you have probably seen this, too, in other industries, where big accounts get perks that don't go to the small accounts.
That doesn't make sense. How does it hurt Kickstarter to allow small projects, or help them to kill them off? Remember, it's not as though they have to put a lot of manpower into each project. It's just an automated service.
Actually Kickstarter does feature projects. So it promotes some more than others. Therefore, if Kickstarter becomes most concerned with the bottom line, it might choose to feature the "big" projects more than the little ones.
That's what some people are asking. Will Kickstarter "sell out"?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
The other thing that Kickstarter might focus on in more depth is if the goal is to foster creative projects, maybe there can be other ways to involve crowd participation than encouraging people to give money.
Giving money to a project creator as part of the creative process doesn't strike me as nearly as expansive as making the crowd itself the creative process.
Kickstarter, of course, can't take 5% of a project where no money has changed hands, but if creativity is the ultimate goal, let's find more ways to do that in moneyless exchanges and involvements.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
Maybe if there were a different word for what you do on Kickstarter, like fund or invest or something, it would be less of a problem. Does Kickstarter themselves call it donating, or something else?
Well, Kickstarter just said this: "Kickstarter is a new way for creators to bring their projects to life. Not through commerce, charity, or investment — through a new model powered by a willing audience."
So the company wants to define itself as something other than a sales site, a donation site, or an investment site.
Now, what I like about Kickstarter is that it is project-driven. People develop projects which may last only long enough to create whatever is being proposed, rather than being a jumping off point for a longer term company or licensing opportunity.
But that also means getting away from the idea of branding. Don't brand the project, don't brand whatever company develops, and don't use celebrity brands to sell it.
So I'd like to think that each project is evaluated on the quality of its concept alone, without regard to whose name is attached to it. In other words, downplay the names involved and play up the project itself.
Let's have these Kickstarter projects be entities unto themselves.
Also, we may find that it's best to separate arts crowdfunding in ways it has always been:
1. Angels
2. Patrons
Broadway has often used angels to put in money for projects. If the project is profitable, they share in that.
Art patrons have tended to gravitate more to projects where there is no share of profits (usually because the assumption is there won't be any profits and if there is positive income, it will go back to the artist to keep the artist afloat). Patrons are helping to support otherwise "starving" artists.
As it becomes easier to do online crowdfunded investments, we may see the celebrities using the investment route and the unknowns using the patron route, with websites focused on one or the other rather than trying to do both within the same format. That's where Kickstarter is being challenged now: Who is your target audience? What is your mission?
I'm sorry, but you obviously do not watch public television, or listen to public radio, because you just exactly described their semi-annual pledge drives.
Then that's exactly how it could be sold on YouTube, too. "Subscribe to keep those Sesame Street shows coming."
1. Do you want to help someone?
or
2. Do you want to buy something?
Kickstarter has discouraged the second part. The founders have said that this has never been how they wanted to pitch the concept. And also some of the Kickstarter projects turn out to be unreliable or unpredictable in delivering the premiums. So if you are expecting something for your donation, you might be disappointed if (1) the project fails, (2) you don't get it in a timely manner, or (3) the quality isn't what you expect.
So it has been more about patronage than reason to buy. Do celebrities need patrons? That's what the discussion has been about.
It's on par with a Wall Street banker begging for cash on a street corner so he doesn't have to pay for his lunch. It is classless.
A similar way to conceptualize it would be a college fund. Would you rather donate to help a poor kid go to college or a rich kid go to college?
The worst part I think is that this sort of thing can lead to donor fatigue. People start to get tired of bailing out everyone else, and decide it's just no longer worth it.
I know lots of musicians and have helped out some in a variety of ways. What I won't do is fund any Kickstarter projects. It's better for me to tell my friends that I don't do Kickstarter at all than to have to explain why I'll chip in for some, but not others. I'd rather focus on a few people than to donate a little amount to lots of people.
So this crowdfunding stuff is something I have been involved in and thought about for years. My criteria has been in the past: (1) talent, (2) likely success of the project, and (3) it won't get done without my help.
However, I don't plan to take on any new creative projects because my interests have shifted to bigger economic issues than the arts. I'm focusing on very big picture economic and sustainability issues these days. Arts funding will fall into place if economic/sustainability issues are addressed. If we find a way for everyone to get by on very little income, or if we find a way to raise everyone's income to a decent level, artists will be part of that system. On the other hand, if the 99% watch their incomes continue to drop, they won't have the money to support themselves, let alone artists.
Many real content creators are making money on YouTube already or just using YouTube as a jumping point to many other things.
Not as much as people think, which is why they are looking elsewhere.
YouTube can be helpful launching careers, but once that visibility is there, many look beyond YouTube for money.
I could pull quite a few articles quoting YouTube stars who say their ad payouts aren't as big as people think. I've saved every article on the subject that I see. Here's one that might be a good overview.
I honestly don't care what YouTube does, but for whatever its reason, it wants to move beyond what it is currently doing. Apparently in YouTube's mind, this is worth a try.
People do ask it. It can be like donating to a charity. What's the best use of your money? To donate to a charity that has no other sources of revenue or to donate to a big charity that has many donors?
I suppose we'll see how this all plays out in a few years if this becomes the primary way projects are done. How much splintering will there be in the crowdfunding scene? Once it becomes common, will the big stars even need Kickstarter anymore? They can just do direct-to-fan pitches on their own websites.
The big discussion everywhere (and it has always been such since the early days of the WWW) seems to be that advertising alone doesn't support content creators. There's just not enough advertising to go around and there are constantly new places for it.
It's not surprising that all forms of media keep coming back to trying to find ways for content users to pay for it, whether through crowdfunding, subscriptions, etc.
The alternative to advertising and users paying for content appears to be data collection, which has its own downsides (i.e. invasion of privacy). If people won't pay, you compile information on them and sell that.
I think YouTube is hoping ultimately to replace cable. It is already into broadband.
One thing YouTube has to do is to prove to content creators that it can compensate them better than other options. YouTube tried funding exclusive content studios, but that hasn't produced any blockbuster content and the creators have complained that they aren't making enough money from YouTube advertising. (What some of those studios are doing now is going directly to companies to sponsor them rather than having those companies pass through YouTube.)
YouTube seems to want to expand beyond user-generated content available for free.
If paying studios for original content hasn't been working to everyone's satisfaction, then finding a way to compensate places with a deep library of already created content was probably the next step.
Will it work? I don't know, but if YouTube is targeting cable TV, then it already has a model that has worked and the company may feel it is worth trying yet again.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
When they all use Kickstarter, then we'll see if it continues to work for them all or if celebrity crowdfunding fatigue sets in. I have no idea, although I think the overall trend will be to continue to drive down the costs of creative creations so there isn't reason to need to raise much money in the first place.
Perhaps at some point it will all be so commonplace, the media will look else where for stories.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
And the Rolling Stones are discovering that people don't want to pay a lot of money to see them.
As more people discover they can be entertained and entertain themselves without spending a lot of money, I think we will see more of this. And I think a lot of people are too broke to fund rich celebrities anyway.
We'll have to see what happens when lots of celebrities use Kickstarter and if the odds of success decrease as more use the platform.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
This are all reasonable questions. Maybe the problem is that the system is so screwed up that it is too expensive for Braff to self fund.
Or maybe he shouldn't be doing projects so big that he can't self fund.
If little people can fund movies out of their own pockets and get friends to work for free, why not Braff?
Why does creativity need to cost anyone any money?
Those are the bigger issues.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
There are ways to play the game. Amanda Palmer set her goal way lower than she knew she could hit. And she combined three different projects (an album, a tour, and a book) into one project to cover a lot of bases and raise a bigger amount.
Look, I like Kickstarter. And I like the idea of crowdfunding. I like even better the idea of crowdsourcing and eliminating the need for fundraising altogether.
I'm just explaining that financial support of creativity that has nuances that are worthy to be explored.
It is reasonable for people to ask why someone who has already been well-paid by the system needs to crowdfund. Why do the "rich" need people to give them money? That's part of the bigger question of world economics.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Kickstarter has always chosen who can participate
Some of you seem to be assuming that anyone who wants to crowdfund can use Kickstarter as long as they pay the necessary fees.
That's never been the case. You apply to Kickstarter. Some projects aren't accepted. Kickstarter wants projects to succeed and keeps track of what percentage of projects make their goals and how much those projects raise. And then it publicizes those success stories.
So that's one reason why people have been discussing whether they will be shut out as big stars start using the platform more.
Of course, Kickstarter isn't the only game in town, and as crowdfunding expands there will be lots of different ways it is being handled. I'm big on participatory creativity and my personal preference is that the projects become crowdsourced, rather than crowdfunded.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
I meant Kickstarter. Some creatives are concerned that Kickstarter will begin to ignore them and not put in any effort to help them out.
The other thing to consider is that Kickstarter isn't the only game in town, nor is it unique. If true independents feel edged out of Kickstarter, there's nothing to stop them going to IndieGoGo or someone from setting up a more focussed new site based on the same concepts. Kickstarter happen to be the most talked about brand name in the field, not the only choice.
That's what I think will happen. If Kickstarter becomes associated with big stars and loses its "soul" then less known artists may go elsewhere.
There's no particular reason to use Kickstarter if Kickstarter doesn't enhance your ability to raise more money. And if you find yourself being drowned out by bigger projects, you may find no value in it. Or, more likely, as crowdfunding becomes more popular, the big stars will just crowdfund directly from their own sites and not bother to pay a 5% fee to Kickstarter.
As I pointed out before, there are lots of different reasons people are motivated contribute to Kickstarter projects. Crowdfunding efforts can become more specialized as the concept expands. The people who want to buy new products may go one place. The people who want to help unknown artists may go to another place. The people who want to associate with famous creatives will go elsewhere.
Ultimately the issue won't be with crowdfunding, but whether Kickstarter can continue to define itself in comparison to other crowdfunding sites. eBay and Amazon benefit from bigness because people go to those sites specifically to buy something and comparison shop. The more stuff there is, the more they can find. But relatively few people go to Kickstarter simply to crowdfund, because relatively few people are thinking, "I've got money. What deserving project can I support?" That's how arts charities sometimes are run (i.e., getting people to donate), but there's a lot of marketing to potential donors to have that happen. And then you get into the competition factor of which artists are the arts foundations going to support.
Since Kickstarter says it isn't a marketplace in the usual sense, size may not help it. If anything, Kickstarter has benefited as a place where potential projects have been curated. Not everyone is allowed to use the platform. So, who does Kickstarter include and who doesn't it include? That's what is being sorted out now.
Although some of you think Kickstarter has no say in who gets to use it for fundraising, that isn't the case. Projects are rejected. And if everyone tried to use it, even if they had no chance to raise money, Kickstarter's failure rate would go up and reflect negatively on Kickstarter. Unlike some sites which don't monitor whether people make money using the platform, Kickstarter does do that. Its image and publicity is tied up in how much people raise and how much the projects exceed their goals. It's not an indifferent platform, as some of you seem to think. It's never been open to everyone, unlike, say Twitter. It is curated.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
My agent told me she wouldn't pitch magazine articles, but she would handle books, preferable blockbuster books.
So these creatives who have had to scramble to raise whatever funds they can are worried that once the stars come into the picture, they'll get pushed aside. If Kickstarter starts to court the stars, the unknown creatives may find less help and attention for themselves. Not necessarily from potential donors, but from companies which might assign people to pay attention to the big stars and ignore the little ones.
Twitter did it when it was launching. It was providing special attention to celebrities in ways that it wasn't doing for the average Twitter user.
Most of you have probably seen this, too, in other industries, where big accounts get perks that don't go to the small accounts.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Growing the pie vs. taking a slice
Actually Kickstarter does feature projects. So it promotes some more than others. Therefore, if Kickstarter becomes most concerned with the bottom line, it might choose to feature the "big" projects more than the little ones.
That's what some people are asking. Will Kickstarter "sell out"?
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
Giving money to a project creator as part of the creative process doesn't strike me as nearly as expansive as making the crowd itself the creative process.
Kickstarter, of course, can't take 5% of a project where no money has changed hands, but if creativity is the ultimate goal, let's find more ways to do that in moneyless exchanges and involvements.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
Well, Kickstarter just said this: "Kickstarter is a new way for creators to bring their projects to life. Not through commerce, charity, or investment — through a new model powered by a willing audience."
So the company wants to define itself as something other than a sales site, a donation site, or an investment site.
Now, what I like about Kickstarter is that it is project-driven. People develop projects which may last only long enough to create whatever is being proposed, rather than being a jumping off point for a longer term company or licensing opportunity.
But that also means getting away from the idea of branding. Don't brand the project, don't brand whatever company develops, and don't use celebrity brands to sell it.
So I'd like to think that each project is evaluated on the quality of its concept alone, without regard to whose name is attached to it. In other words, downplay the names involved and play up the project itself.
Let's have these Kickstarter projects be entities unto themselves.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Wrong question
1. Angels
2. Patrons
Broadway has often used angels to put in money for projects. If the project is profitable, they share in that.
Art patrons have tended to gravitate more to projects where there is no share of profits (usually because the assumption is there won't be any profits and if there is positive income, it will go back to the artist to keep the artist afloat). Patrons are helping to support otherwise "starving" artists.
As it becomes easier to do online crowdfunded investments, we may see the celebrities using the investment route and the unknowns using the patron route, with websites focused on one or the other rather than trying to do both within the same format. That's where Kickstarter is being challenged now: Who is your target audience? What is your mission?
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
Then that's exactly how it could be sold on YouTube, too. "Subscribe to keep those Sesame Street shows coming."
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Wrong question
1. Do you want to help someone?
or
2. Do you want to buy something?
Kickstarter has discouraged the second part. The founders have said that this has never been how they wanted to pitch the concept. And also some of the Kickstarter projects turn out to be unreliable or unpredictable in delivering the premiums. So if you are expecting something for your donation, you might be disappointed if (1) the project fails, (2) you don't get it in a timely manner, or (3) the quality isn't what you expect.
So it has been more about patronage than reason to buy. Do celebrities need patrons? That's what the discussion has been about.
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Qrong question
A similar way to conceptualize it would be a college fund. Would you rather donate to help a poor kid go to college or a rich kid go to college?
The worst part I think is that this sort of thing can lead to donor fatigue. People start to get tired of bailing out everyone else, and decide it's just no longer worth it.
I know lots of musicians and have helped out some in a variety of ways. What I won't do is fund any Kickstarter projects. It's better for me to tell my friends that I don't do Kickstarter at all than to have to explain why I'll chip in for some, but not others. I'd rather focus on a few people than to donate a little amount to lots of people.
So this crowdfunding stuff is something I have been involved in and thought about for years. My criteria has been in the past: (1) talent, (2) likely success of the project, and (3) it won't get done without my help.
However, I don't plan to take on any new creative projects because my interests have shifted to bigger economic issues than the arts. I'm focusing on very big picture economic and sustainability issues these days. Arts funding will fall into place if economic/sustainability issues are addressed. If we find a way for everyone to get by on very little income, or if we find a way to raise everyone's income to a decent level, artists will be part of that system. On the other hand, if the 99% watch their incomes continue to drop, they won't have the money to support themselves, let alone artists.
On the post: Moral Panic Over Google Glass: White House Petition Asks To Ban Them To Prevent 'Indecent' Public Surveillance
Of course, these companies would never do this, right?
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Can't put my finger on it...
Don't Hate on Zach Braff - Rage Against Kickstarter's Perry Chen
On the post: Silliest Argument Ever: Just Because A YouTube Paywall Launches It Means More Money Is Made
Re:
Not as much as people think, which is why they are looking elsewhere.
YouTube can be helpful launching careers, but once that visibility is there, many look beyond YouTube for money.
I could pull quite a few articles quoting YouTube stars who say their ad payouts aren't as big as people think. I've saved every article on the subject that I see. Here's one that might be a good overview.
I honestly don't care what YouTube does, but for whatever its reason, it wants to move beyond what it is currently doing. Apparently in YouTube's mind, this is worth a try.
YouTube Execs Talk Up Paid-Subscription Channels - Digits - WSJ
On the post: There Is No Logic To The Argument That Zach Braff Shouldn't Use Kickstarter
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How is it different?
People do ask it. It can be like donating to a charity. What's the best use of your money? To donate to a charity that has no other sources of revenue or to donate to a big charity that has many donors?
I suppose we'll see how this all plays out in a few years if this becomes the primary way projects are done. How much splintering will there be in the crowdfunding scene? Once it becomes common, will the big stars even need Kickstarter anymore? They can just do direct-to-fan pitches on their own websites.
On the post: Silliest Argument Ever: Just Because A YouTube Paywall Launches It Means More Money Is Made
Re: Replacing cable
It's not surprising that all forms of media keep coming back to trying to find ways for content users to pay for it, whether through crowdfunding, subscriptions, etc.
The alternative to advertising and users paying for content appears to be data collection, which has its own downsides (i.e. invasion of privacy). If people won't pay, you compile information on them and sell that.
On the post: Silliest Argument Ever: Just Because A YouTube Paywall Launches It Means More Money Is Made
Replacing cable
One thing YouTube has to do is to prove to content creators that it can compensate them better than other options. YouTube tried funding exclusive content studios, but that hasn't produced any blockbuster content and the creators have complained that they aren't making enough money from YouTube advertising. (What some of those studios are doing now is going directly to companies to sponsor them rather than having those companies pass through YouTube.)
YouTube seems to want to expand beyond user-generated content available for free.
If paying studios for original content hasn't been working to everyone's satisfaction, then finding a way to compensate places with a deep library of already created content was probably the next step.
Will it work? I don't know, but if YouTube is targeting cable TV, then it already has a model that has worked and the company may feel it is worth trying yet again.
Next >>