Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
That aspect of it is set in stone, legally speaking. If money is involved, everyone had better have signed a contract, or at least come to some sort of quasi-legally-binding agreement.
Actually I was talking about money in addition to determining who does what. As people begin a project, they can draw up a contract defining the terms upon what basis any money would be distributed. It could be equally. It could give different people different percentages, which might be determined on a variety of factors.
Consider a typical Kickstarter project. Is it a whole? Or is a combination of discrete parts? If it is a combination of parts (which could be across a variety of media), are the part creators the owners of those parts and are they compensated accordingly? Or does the Kickstarter project "voice" own them and everyone other than the "voice" is merely a work-for-hire?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
It's going to be hard to match up similar Kickstarter projects because is different, but I know people are gathering data on all the Kickstarter projects collectively and looking for patterns. As more projects get done, there's more info to play around with. People have mapped out which categories raise the most money, which categories generate the most projects, what the average size of a contribution is, and so on.
I haven't yet seen info on who the likely donors are, but there have been enough projects that the general advice is that you need to tap into an already big network of people who know you in order to generate sufficient funds. Only about 1% of a person's mailing list actually give to the project.
Those Kickstarter campaigns that generate national/international press manage to get in front of a much bigger group of people than those that only hit the level of awareness of those on their Facebook pages or email lists, so that is one way to increase the pool of potential donors.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
After all, every party involved must be on board with the whole project (by law).
You'll have to explain what you are thinking about here. I think it is possible to structure a collaboration in a variety of ways. Here's what I wrote about the topic two years ago, and I have been looking for more discussion on the subject ever since.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I don't think she is. She's already paid for the raw album tracks and the artwork (all out-of-pocket). She mentioned that she "commissioned" the artwork, so I'm betting it's a standard work-for-hire situation. I'm betting it's the same with the musicians on the album. On the other hand, these are also the musicians she's touring with, so who knows what the arrangement is there.
That does make it simpler, but I have been wondering if anyone is doing Kickstarter projects as true collaborations and if so, how they decide who gets what compensation. I've found very little discussion of this, though I think the creative, cross-media nature of many Kickstarter projects is going to encourage more experimentation along these lines.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
You certainly see that with Amanda's package. Compare the two Boston events packages: one with only the art show ($250), one with the art show plus reserved tickets for the general-admission rock show ($300). Only 2 people bought the "art-show only" package; 45 paid the extra $50 for the rock show as well. (And did so even though they would pay far less if they'd bought tickets to the rock show separately.)
That's the kind of analysis I like to do or have someone else do. And yes, it did strike me that Palmer hasn't sold out her events either. She seems to covered it by offering lots more reward packages. And as the "hack" article pointed out, she's actually promoting three different things -- an album, an artbook, and a tour. And that's why articles like that are useful -- to breakdown a successful Kickstarter campaign so others can learn from it. What I want to know, and I hope Palmer elaborates, is how she handles compensating all the people involved with the various aspects of this Kickstarter project. I suspect she is doing at least part of it differently than a work-for-hire arrangement with the others involved, but I don't know that for sure.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I'm not saying that this is what Schrader and Ellis are doing, at all. But they both interact far less with fans than Amanda does (though that's a very high bar).
I put Palmer in a category all her own. I haven't run across anyone else like her. She's creative, smart, willing to try anything, has boundless energy, and seems to genuinely like her fans. I think her projects are personality driven and I don't think anyone else has her personality. She's endlessly throwing parties/happenings/whatever and inviting people along. It does sound fun.
But I am trying to get a handle on what others can or can't do on Kickstarter. The reason I have singled out this film is that I think their rewards are cool. If I were a film fan or wanting to get into this industry, I'd sign up for one of them in a minute. And that's why I expressed surprise that more people haven't jumped at it. They seem surprisingly accessible in this project as film icons go.
Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Amanda had a huge, and I do mean HUGE fan-driven marketing campaign online. From tumblr to twitter to facebook. for the past week she has been everywhere, all thanks to her fans basically spamming the web. And yet she didn't have to spend a single cent on ads. That is the power of fan support.
Yes, I think publicity, whether fan-driven or media-drive, or both, plays a huge role. That's why I wondered if potential fans of this film don't yet know about it. The rewards themselves strike me as pretty cool and fairly priced.
Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Okay, since a couple of people have had issues with how I started this thread, then me start again.
The Pebble Watch, Amanda Palmer, and this film all set an initial goal of $100,000. Why do you think the amounts they have raised have been vastly different?
Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
As an example, look at what you get with the top tiers: a chance to cast a vote in the casting process (American Idol-style), tickets to private screening, the chance to come to the shoot, the chance to meet with (and have your script critiqued by) the artists.
These are things that Amanda routinely "gives away" for free.
Both the filmmakers and Palmer are charging for private events, so I think it is comparable. Here's an example of what Palmer is offering. If you guys do have more insight into how the campaigns are different, go ahead and toss them out. And if you want to reframe the question to further the discussion, please go ahead. I want as much intelligent analysis of Kickstarter campaigns as anyone cares to supply.
Pledge $300 or more
54 Backers • Limited Reward (46 of 100 remaining)
{NEW YORK: ART OPENING/BACKER PARTY} JUNE 28th | 7-10PM | ALL AGES | MOMENTA GALLERY: the local NYC VIP throw-down for easty-coasty kickstarter backers! a unique evening showcasing the original artwork created for the record, plus an intimate acoustic performance by me & The Grand Theft Orchestra. this bundle includes food and drink/surprise gifts/whatever special NY-based shit we can dream up at the event! also includes: the album on compact disc OR vinyl, PLUS a SIGNED copy of the art book, PLUS a digital download & thank-you card. in addition to all of this, we'll guest list you for the open-to-public rock show in brooklyn on June 27th at The Music Hall of Williamsburg. PLEASE NOTE: The show at MHoW is 16+
Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
One of the most interesting aspects of Kickstarter is that you can see how many people are signing up for each reward. So you get to see what rewards appear to be working and which ones aren't. And you can also run the numbers and see what percentage of the money raised comes from each level. In fact, many people do that before they launch their own Kickstarter campaigns. They look at many other campaigns to see what types of rewards work, what pricing levels work best, and so on. There's a lot info on Kickstarter that most people don't usually disclose to the public, so it really opens up potential discussions about numbers. Fascinating stuff. People on Techdirt may not want to discuss it, but I can assure you there are detailed posts on other sites about Kickstarter campaigns.
Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Since there is some confusion about what I am asking, here's an example. I think this reward is pretty cool. Yet only 61 people have taken it, even though there are 1000 of them available. Why do you suppose that is? Are the fans not all that interested in this? Do people not know about it?
_________________
Pledge $100 or more
61 Backers • Limited Reward (939 of 1000 remaining)
Two tickets to attend a private cast & crew screening and Q&A of "The Canyons" in Los Angeles or New York. (transportation and lodging not provided) -- Your choice of Blu-Ray or DVD copy upon release. -- Plus all the aforementioned perks.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
If the producer doesn't care about getting extra money beyond his existing budget or is unable to utilise extra cash due to existing agreements (the 100k is only partial funding to top up what they already have), then why do you care enough to criticise them?
You interpret my asking why more people haven't bought rewards as criticism. It's a legitimate marketing question. I'm going to ask these questions about every Kickstarter project. "Why do you suppose this approach got this result?" "Why do you suppose that approach got that result?" I'm very curious about these things. Take it as criticism if you will, but I'll keep asking, and hope that I spur more discussion on the topic.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
There are many possibilities, most of which don't involve questioning the moral fibre of people who haven't donated. One I can confirm for myself - I haven't donated because the target was reached before I learned of the project. I have donated to other projects recently, but see little point in donating to a fully funded project. There's also the matter of the funding cycle not yet having been completed.
That is highly relevant. Why do you suppose this project might be perceived as not needing help once the goal has been reached, but Palmer has greatly exceeded her goal? And in fact, as that hack post that I linked to suggests, it was probably her intention all along to set the goal low because she gets more publicity by greatly exceeding it.
By tossing comments back and forth with me, you are at least helping me explore the issue. In your mind, once the goal has been reached, the project creators no longer need your help. That's one way to see a project. Palmer, on the other hand, keeps adding rewards to lure in more people. And she's smart in that way. I have never funded a Kickstarter project before because everyone I know is doing them and I don't want to support some but not others. (And I don't want to give everyone a token pledge because it seems chintzy.) I have, on the other hand, made significant contributions to people outside Kickstarter. That works better for me.
And yet this last week I contributed a dollar to Palmer. Why? I'm on her email list, and think she has great things to say on her blog. But she commented that some of the info about the project would only be available to those who contribute. Since I want to know as many business details as she will share, paying her a dollar to get them was worth it to me. I thought, "Smart woman. Here I am refusing to contribute to Kickstarter so that I don't have to pick and choose among friends' projects and yet I still signed up for Palmer's."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
But, I'm not entirely sure why you're so negative.
I'm not being negative at all. What I am asking is this. "They have cool rewards. I wonder why they haven't gotten as many takers as Palmer?"
It's sometimes really hard to have an open discussion on Techdirt because if you don't stick totally with the "for or against" mentality typical in the Techdirt comments, people put you in the against category.
Therefore anyone actually wanting to explore how to best tweak Kickstarter would likely to go elsewhere to discuss the subject. If you aren't even allowed to ask why this film has gotten one set of results and Palmer has gotten another set, then that kind of limits the discussion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I don't know, and the funding cycle is still in progress. They still have 3 weeks left to go. Let's see how much they manage to raise in that time, but it's truly irrelevant at this point. They have backers for every level from $1 to over $10,000. They have the money they asked for, and the film is gong to be made. What else really matters?
I'm a marketing person and I like to study all Kickstarter projects to see what works and what doesn't work. And the more Kickstarter becomes the place to go for fundraising, the more people are going to look for tips to create the most successful campaigns. Here's a great example:
Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Kickstarter can be used as a form of support and/or for presales.
I think those using it for presales and offering items unavailable otherwise or at a discount seem to raise more money than those projects mainly hoping for support.
I don't know if these screenwriters are perceived as being famous/rich enough not to need more money than they have raised or whether potential supporters either don't know about or don't want to buy the rewards, but I am surprised. I think the rewards look pretty cool, myself.
I've also looked at Palmer's rewards and I think she's offering an interesting and fairly priced collection of rewards. For example, $300 for an art soiree isn't too much for the crowd that likes to attend these things. And she is offering some packages that you can only get via her Kickstarter project. I think she (and/or her team) has a good business sense.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Actually I was talking about money in addition to determining who does what. As people begin a project, they can draw up a contract defining the terms upon what basis any money would be distributed. It could be equally. It could give different people different percentages, which might be determined on a variety of factors.
Consider a typical Kickstarter project. Is it a whole? Or is a combination of discrete parts? If it is a combination of parts (which could be across a variety of media), are the part creators the owners of those parts and are they compensated accordingly? Or does the Kickstarter project "voice" own them and everyone other than the "voice" is merely a work-for-hire?
It can be set up in all sorts of different ways.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
That's what I am asking clarification for. What legal matters are you referring to?
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I haven't yet seen info on who the likely donors are, but there have been enough projects that the general advice is that you need to tap into an already big network of people who know you in order to generate sufficient funds. Only about 1% of a person's mailing list actually give to the project.
Those Kickstarter campaigns that generate national/international press manage to get in front of a much bigger group of people than those that only hit the level of awareness of those on their Facebook pages or email lists, so that is one way to increase the pool of potential donors.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
You'll have to explain what you are thinking about here. I think it is possible to structure a collaboration in a variety of ways. Here's what I wrote about the topic two years ago, and I have been looking for more discussion on the subject ever since.
Collaborating on "Creative Things"
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
That does make it simpler, but I have been wondering if anyone is doing Kickstarter projects as true collaborations and if so, how they decide who gets what compensation. I've found very little discussion of this, though I think the creative, cross-media nature of many Kickstarter projects is going to encourage more experimentation along these lines.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
That's the kind of analysis I like to do or have someone else do. And yes, it did strike me that Palmer hasn't sold out her events either. She seems to covered it by offering lots more reward packages. And as the "hack" article pointed out, she's actually promoting three different things -- an album, an artbook, and a tour. And that's why articles like that are useful -- to breakdown a successful Kickstarter campaign so others can learn from it. What I want to know, and I hope Palmer elaborates, is how she handles compensating all the people involved with the various aspects of this Kickstarter project. I suspect she is doing at least part of it differently than a work-for-hire arrangement with the others involved, but I don't know that for sure.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I put Palmer in a category all her own. I haven't run across anyone else like her. She's creative, smart, willing to try anything, has boundless energy, and seems to genuinely like her fans. I think her projects are personality driven and I don't think anyone else has her personality. She's endlessly throwing parties/happenings/whatever and inviting people along. It does sound fun.
But I am trying to get a handle on what others can or can't do on Kickstarter. The reason I have singled out this film is that I think their rewards are cool. If I were a film fan or wanting to get into this industry, I'd sign up for one of them in a minute. And that's why I expressed surprise that more people haven't jumped at it. They seem surprisingly accessible in this project as film icons go.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Yes, I think publicity, whether fan-driven or media-drive, or both, plays a huge role. That's why I wondered if potential fans of this film don't yet know about it. The rewards themselves strike me as pretty cool and fairly priced.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
The Pebble Watch, Amanda Palmer, and this film all set an initial goal of $100,000. Why do you think the amounts they have raised have been vastly different?
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
Can I change my deadline after I launch?
No. Once a project launches, the end date cannot be changed.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
No, I'm pretty sure there is a time limit, funded or not. So the money collection for this project stops in 20 more days.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I didn't write that one. It was written by one of the co-founders of Brands Plus Music. He's actually a VP of Live Nation right now.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
These are things that Amanda routinely "gives away" for free.
Both the filmmakers and Palmer are charging for private events, so I think it is comparable. Here's an example of what Palmer is offering. If you guys do have more insight into how the campaigns are different, go ahead and toss them out. And if you want to reframe the question to further the discussion, please go ahead. I want as much intelligent analysis of Kickstarter campaigns as anyone cares to supply.
Pledge $300 or more
54 Backers • Limited Reward (46 of 100 remaining)
{NEW YORK: ART OPENING/BACKER PARTY} JUNE 28th | 7-10PM | ALL AGES | MOMENTA GALLERY: the local NYC VIP throw-down for easty-coasty kickstarter backers! a unique evening showcasing the original artwork created for the record, plus an intimate acoustic performance by me & The Grand Theft Orchestra. this bundle includes food and drink/surprise gifts/whatever special NY-based shit we can dream up at the event! also includes: the album on compact disc OR vinyl, PLUS a SIGNED copy of the art book, PLUS a digital download & thank-you card. in addition to all of this, we'll guest list you for the open-to-public rock show in brooklyn on June 27th at The Music Hall of Williamsburg. PLEASE NOTE: The show at MHoW is 16+
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
_________________
Pledge $100 or more
61 Backers • Limited Reward (939 of 1000 remaining)
Two tickets to attend a private cast & crew screening and Q&A of "The Canyons" in Los Angeles or New York. (transportation and lodging not provided) -- Your choice of Blu-Ray or DVD copy upon release. -- Plus all the aforementioned perks.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
You interpret my asking why more people haven't bought rewards as criticism. It's a legitimate marketing question. I'm going to ask these questions about every Kickstarter project. "Why do you suppose this approach got this result?" "Why do you suppose that approach got that result?" I'm very curious about these things. Take it as criticism if you will, but I'll keep asking, and hope that I spur more discussion on the topic.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
That is highly relevant. Why do you suppose this project might be perceived as not needing help once the goal has been reached, but Palmer has greatly exceeded her goal? And in fact, as that hack post that I linked to suggests, it was probably her intention all along to set the goal low because she gets more publicity by greatly exceeding it.
By tossing comments back and forth with me, you are at least helping me explore the issue. In your mind, once the goal has been reached, the project creators no longer need your help. That's one way to see a project. Palmer, on the other hand, keeps adding rewards to lure in more people. And she's smart in that way. I have never funded a Kickstarter project before because everyone I know is doing them and I don't want to support some but not others. (And I don't want to give everyone a token pledge because it seems chintzy.) I have, on the other hand, made significant contributions to people outside Kickstarter. That works better for me.
And yet this last week I contributed a dollar to Palmer. Why? I'm on her email list, and think she has great things to say on her blog. But she commented that some of the info about the project would only be available to those who contribute. Since I want to know as many business details as she will share, paying her a dollar to get them was worth it to me. I thought, "Smart woman. Here I am refusing to contribute to Kickstarter so that I don't have to pick and choose among friends' projects and yet I still signed up for Palmer's."
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I'm not being negative at all. What I am asking is this. "They have cool rewards. I wonder why they haven't gotten as many takers as Palmer?"
It's sometimes really hard to have an open discussion on Techdirt because if you don't stick totally with the "for or against" mentality typical in the Techdirt comments, people put you in the against category.
Therefore anyone actually wanting to explore how to best tweak Kickstarter would likely to go elsewhere to discuss the subject. If you aren't even allowed to ask why this film has gotten one set of results and Palmer has gotten another set, then that kind of limits the discussion.
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I'm a marketing person and I like to study all Kickstarter projects to see what works and what doesn't work. And the more Kickstarter becomes the place to go for fundraising, the more people are going to look for tips to create the most successful campaigns. Here's a great example:
AMANDA PALMER HAS A HUGE HACK
On the post: Hollywood Talent Turns To Kickstarter To Escape 'Institutional Censorship'
Re: Re: Re: Surprised they haven't raised more money so far
I think those using it for presales and offering items unavailable otherwise or at a discount seem to raise more money than those projects mainly hoping for support.
I don't know if these screenwriters are perceived as being famous/rich enough not to need more money than they have raised or whether potential supporters either don't know about or don't want to buy the rewards, but I am surprised. I think the rewards look pretty cool, myself.
I've also looked at Palmer's rewards and I think she's offering an interesting and fairly priced collection of rewards. For example, $300 for an art soiree isn't too much for the crowd that likes to attend these things. And she is offering some packages that you can only get via her Kickstarter project. I think she (and/or her team) has a good business sense.
Next >>