I was amused by the tales of shipping woes. Every other kickstarted I've done has been a pre-order on a book, where the whole point is shipping thousands of items

Oh, btw, did the Pink Five DVDs ever ship? I know I didn't get mine, so I was just curious. And, Trey, your memory was a bit off as I know I kicked in for the DVD plus every other item, so it wasn't just a DVD-only option

Have to finish the movie first.   Our premiere is next week at Space City Con in Houston.

Assuming l survive that, when I get back I'll start work on the DVD's.

At first we only offered DVD's at the $150 level, bundled with other stuff.   But everyone wanted a damn DVD so I created the $50 dvd-only reward, and set a 75-unit limit on it. 

It actually turned out to be a popular choice, and at $50 a DVD's not a money-loser.

Like Zach Braff, Spike Lee is using Kickstarter to preserve his artistic vision. Interesting.

I'm not aware of a controversy regarding her use of Kickstarter. As I recall, it was more that after breaking crowdfunding records, and raising over 11 times what she asked for, she put out a call for designers or something and tried to play the "I can't afford to pay, labor of love, do it for the exposure" card. To which the reply was "Amanda, the ENTIRE INTERNET knows that's complete bullshit. You just got over a million dollars in free money. If you want work done, fucking pay for it with the money you raised for that exact purpose."

Last edited by Dorkman (2013-07-23 15:13:29)

It's the million dollars. Kickstarter runs on goodwill and she was shown a lot of goodwill, people would like to see some of that returned. This has nothing to do with Kickstarter itself and everything to do with human interaction. It's a question of decency. Was is wrong? Legally, no. Socially, possibly, someone certainly thought so and then the internet happened.

I think some of it can be attributed to the tone and wording on her call out for musicians. Also I wouldn't be surprised if this had been a none-issue had it been a reward, as you suggest, and framed as a privilege instead of a plea.

For me, my immediate and first question would be, did Amanda EVER give any indication that any of the money she raised would be spent on anything except the album? If no, then the entire thing is a bunch of idiots who didn't understand the contract they signed into, if yes, then sure, it's kind of a dick move on her part, but I can understand it (If she did spend the full amount on the album itself), but it could probably have been fixed by framing the situation a little better and being aware of the image she had as a now millionaire in the public eye.

(I don't actually know the answer to the question which is why I'm not going to comment on it, I have no idea what Amanda did or didn't say.)

When it comes to kickstarters that go above and beyond their goal I have ALWAYS understood the agreement to be: Everything pledged will be going to THIS project. After the point that the project has been funded, anyone who still pledges at that point is aware that they are contributing extra funds to THE PROJECT. And unless the filmmaker/musician whatever comes out and says "Okay guys, anything from here on out is going towards X (The tour, theater release etc etc)" then everything should be going towards the project itself, and no one should ever expect that any money they pledged would go to anything else.

That's why every project I've ever seen has stretch goals (If we get this much extra money we'll get to do this, if we get this much we can shoot at the top of Everest for a day, if we get thiiiis much we'll make a prequel etc).

I think I expected to see Spike Lee hopping on Kickstarter at some point. Back when he had budget problems on his Malcolm X biopic, he asked several black-American celebrities to help get the project to the finish line. Big names like Michael Jordan and Oprah wrote fat checks. They were not investors, and they (the story goes) had no say in anything. All Lee promised them was that if they gave him a donation—i.e., a gift—he'd use that money to finish the film.

For anyone who is curious about AFP's Kickstarter controversy:
The budget - http://amandapalmer.net/blog/where-all- … by-amanda/
On asking people to play for "free" - http://amandapalmer.net/blog/20120914/
The decision to pay with money - http://amandapalmer.net/blog/20120919/

I was surprised that Patreon and Subbable weren't mentioned (though Subbable is brand new and was probably launched after the recording). They are like Kickstarter for ongoing projects (aka. NPR crossed with Kickstarter).

As for the 'morals' of who does what with money on Kickstarter, I think you guys pretty much covered it. With Amanda Palmer my impression was that most complaints were not from people who funded her Kickstarter, even though they were acting as if it was 'their' money to feel indignant about. People have endless judgments about how other people use money.

I also see a difference between exchanging interaction with AFP for playing on stage vs. exchanging 'exposure' for work. People pay for back stage passes, so it has value. As she sees it she is paying them in social interaction, just like she repays the rest of the audience in (less interactive) social interaction. She talks about it more in her TED talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMj_P_6H69g

That said, I do feel it is unprofessional to undercut musicians by working for free. Most professions have specific rules regarding when and how you can work for free specifically so that they don't undercut each other.

I'm on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/invidfan The difference is that Patreon is a straight donation, done AFTER you have created something. Every time you release content, you indicate that on the site and those who have pledged pony up. No money actually changes hands until the end of the month. Yes, you can have rewards, but all three of my donors have refused them, wanting to just give me the money.

Patreon, from the letters I've been getting, is sort of gearing up to become a thing. Or die In the next month or two there should be a big promotional push for the site.

I too wish they would change investing rules so that one could do kickstarting investing. They could limit each investor to $5000 per project or something arbitrarily 'small' (in investing terms). It never made sense to me that unregulated investments can only be made by people with large incomes and/or wealth AND each investment must be over $150,000 (in Canada at least). Why a minimum? I get that the world is full of Ponzi schemes and Nigeria scams and people whine when they looe money, but if I can afford to lose an amount of money I'd like to be able to choose where to lose it. Personally I'd take 'Investment Kickstarter' over Las Vegas.

I'd actually like to take part in LendingClub, but it's USA only. Also taxes on capital gains. Taxes make things complicated.

Hey Trey, were there tax implications to the Kickstarter money? Inquiring economists want to know.

Last edited by Phi (2013-07-24 12:06:17)