Some Kickstarter fund raising is just confusing

Brian_Rice

Brian_Rice

Carbonite Member
So I've got nothing against the project, but, I mean, you're a relatively big television star. Do you really need to "raise" $7,000 for your online comic book?

I mean, seriously, even the Buffy fan site was shooting out messages to help fund this.

I guess why shell out a single dollar if you don't have to, but still, seems like a misuse of the "system" (though I do realize some people misuse fundraising sites in a much worse manner).

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2036663828/lets-get-ripped-emma-caulfields-victorian-age

And, of course, 250 bucks gets you lunch with her, so maybe she's just broke. lol
 
Last edited:
What's confusing about somebody wanting to fund a project they believe in? Smart people don't invest their own money if they can find another way to fund a project. Plus crowd sourcing also helps identify and build an audience.

Maybe they have an investor who's on the brink of committing money but wants to see proof of a fan base before he does? I think you're making an assumptions about the "system".
 
Brian_Rice said:
And, of course, 250 bucks gets you lunch with her, so maybe she's just broke. lol
Click to expand...

Yeah, but NO personal questions.

I don't fully understand this fundraiser, but from what I gather it seems rather beggy and kinda moronic. Especially when you get into the tweet, voicemail & Skype incentives. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
The two cardinal rules of producing. One: Never put your own money in the show. Two: NEVER PUT YOUR OWN MONEY IN THE SHOW!
 
Does anyone actually know why first laid the law down of not investing in your own product as it pertains to artistic endevours?

To me, this has always been a primary concern in real estate (which makes sense), but when you're dealing with brands and creator-owned projects, I'm not 100% with this logic. Just because the money isn't yours doesn't mean it makes good business sense. And even in real estate, most of the time the money is still *in your name*, you just don't have to have it up front in order to start utilizing the property as income.

In some rare occasions in really high-end real estate, you might have a group of investors, but in the end it's still just people investing their own (borrowed) money.

Individual creators have potentially lost millions of dollars because of this caveat.

I think a rule that makes more sense would be: Don't invest money that you don't have (or that can't be borrowed within terms that you can repay). But if you have the money and the means to invest, then I'd say you most certainly should.

E.g. if you've invested all that you can and you need money to complete a project -- that makes sense. If you've invested all you can in one project and are trying to start a new one while selling the previous, needing additional investment at that point also makes sense.

But why would you ever want someone else to secure funds for your project if you yourself could secure those funds? That's adding an unnecessary middle-man who's going to do nothing except absorb profits. I mean, unless you have no concept of business and finance, in which case you're probably going to end up getting screwed in your rights and contracts.

I think it's a little different when you're talking about "donations", because there's no contractual obligations with regards donations.

Hopefully if you're asking people to donate to you it's because you either A) Can't finance the project yourself or B) Aren't willing to finance a project yourself (but if fans want it, you're willing to do it)

This just feels a little seedy. I just donated to one of my favorite indie musicians yesterday because they had to sell their gear in order to pay rent.

And even if these people were just using kickstarter as some sort of a proving engine, again -- that's not really what it's for. It's for projects that can't secure (enough) funding. If that's the case, that's sad for Emma Caufield, but at least I'd be okay with it.
 
I like the idea of using crowd funding as a way of doing some preliminary research gauging audience for your project. Of course that audience wants to know what its getting back in return and when can they expect to see it.
 
I'm sure they could easily get serious investors for this, considering the very low number, good track record and apparently similar webcomic project with a demonstrated following. But no one gets excited about investors. This is part of crowd funding that most people don't think about; the massive marketing value. Unnecessary fundraising campaigns create an army of publicists who now have a stake in the project and feel like they're part of it without doing much. They don't care about the $7,000; they care about the $30,000 this saves them in advertising.

And Kickstarter is a tool. The people who own it can stop projects from joining on whatever criteria they want, but until they do the site is a tool that is open for use in any way a person can use it. If you only think it should be for projects that can't secure funds otherwise, those should be the only projects you donate to.

As for not using your own money, that's a good rule when you don't have any to risk. But investors who put their cash out for risk are the ones getting the real profit- it depends where you want to be in the project.
 
Brian,

To me the biggest reason is that films as an investment vehicle are still massively risky. You're right in the fact that if I pony up the money for my production I would receive a bigger share of the profits (should it actually make money). But statistically this isn't as common as the film NOT making money, in which case I absorb 100% of the loss. Breaking even in 5 years doesn't really help either. If you find funding for the movie you're paid up-front for the production and don't rely on earnings which may never be realized. Obviously I'm not talking about a $2000 feature here.

Even people like Speilberg (who has money to finance entire budgets himself and has an impressive track record of wins) doesn't put up the money when he's the executive producer. There are probably business/accounting reasons for this as well.
 
ugafan said:
only $250 for a date? this is a way better deal than most of the stuff i see on there. sign me up!
Click to expand...


Me too:D

Here's the plan:
1.) go on date
2.) smooth talk her into being in my film
3.) Get free publicity from her tweeting it to all her fans and them talking about it and sharing it
4.) Ride of into the sunset with a trunk full of cash :cool::grin:
 
Saharanturtle said:
Me too:D

Here's the plan:
1.) go on date
2.) smooth talk her into being in my film
3.) Get free publicity from her tweeting it to all her fans and them talking about it and sharing it
4.) Ride of into the sunset with a trunk full of cash :cool::grin:
Click to expand...

Well, here in Detroit a $250.00 date can get ya a little different outcome...
 
I'm such a piece of crap because the first thing I thought when I saw the 250 = date was, "So, she's picking up the check then, right?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top